Abstract
It has been long acknowledged that staff responses to challenging behaviour
shown by people with learning disabilities often contributes to the long-term
maintenance of the challenging behaviour. In recent years, in an attempt to
understand staff responses to challenging behaviour, interest has been shown in
the study of staffs' belief structures and attitudes towards challenging behaviour,
the assumption being here that staffs' beliefs and attitudes towards challenging
behaviour will influence staffs' behavioural responses to it. Much of this research
has focused on staffs' causal attributions, their emotional responses to such
behaviour and their views regarding appropriate interventions. Previous research
has shown that these factors are influenced by a number of variables, such as
experience in the job and topography of challenging behaviour. Knowledge of
how different variables influence staff attributions is important as it may assist
psychologist's and other professionals with the development of appropriate
intervention packages for challenging behaviour that staff may be more able to
implement.
This study examined the influence of topography of challenging behaviour and
level of severity of learning disability on staff attributions and emotional
responses to challenging behaviour. As in previous research, differences were
seen in staffs' causal attributions, emotional responses and selection of
appropriate interventions for the different topographies of challenging behaviour.
Self-injury was more likely to be viewed as physiological in nature than
aggression or stereotypy, and staff were more likely to recommend medical
interventions. Stereotypy was more likely than aggression or self-injury to be
viewed as environmental or a means of self-stimulation, elicited less in the way of
negative emotions in staff and staff were more likely to recommend distraction
and structuring the person's day as appropriate interventions. Aggression was
found to elicit more intense negative emotions in staff than self-injury or
stereotypy. However, very little support was found for any of the hypotheses for
the examination of level of severity of learning disability on staff attributions and
emotional responses. For only self-injury was there any support for many of the
hypotheses
The results of this study are discussed in the light of a number of methodological
problems that may influence the study's findings. This study also highlighted a
number of implications for clinical practice. Although staff had a reasonable
understanding of causality of challenging behaviour, it was unclear as to how they
assigned causality in actual clinical practice, as relatively few staff recommended
conducting a functional analysis. Their suggestions for appropriate interventions
and emotional responses may also mitigate against effective long-term
interventions for challenging behaviour. On the basis of the results of this study,
recommendations for possible future areas of research were made.
