Suppr超能文献

对通过以个人为中心的规划为重度多重残疾人士确定的偏好进行的系统评估。

A systematic evaluation of preferences identified through person-centered planning for people with profound multiple disabilities.

作者信息

Reid D H, Everson J M, Green C W

机构信息

Carolina Behavior Analysis and Support Center, Morganton, North Carolina 28680, USA.

出版信息

J Appl Behav Anal. 1999 Winter;32(4):467-77. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-467.

Abstract

Person-centered planning is becoming a popular means of designing supports for people with disabilities. However, very little research evaluating person-centered planning exists. We evaluated the degree to which items and activities reported to be preferred in person-centered plans represented accurate preferences based on how individuals responded when presented with the items and activities. Person-centered planning meetings were conducted with 4 individuals with profound multiple disabilities to develop preference maps and to identify leisure-related preferences. A sample of the reported preferences in the plans was then systematically assessed by observing each participant's approach and avoidance responses to the items and activities. Of the sampled items and activities reported to be preferred in the plans, 42% represented moderate preferences based on the latter assessment process and 33% represented strong preferences. With 2 participants, several preferences identified in the plans were nonpreferred items and activities based on the preference assessments, and some were frequently avoided. These results suggested that although person-centered plans may identify some accurate preferences for people with profound multiple disabilities, this approach should be used cautiously. Results also suggested that such plans should be supplemented with systematic preference assessments to ensure the accuracy of identified preferences. Future research areas focus on evaluating other aspects of person-centered planning.

摘要

以个人为中心的规划正成为为残疾人设计支持措施的一种流行方式。然而,评估以个人为中心的规划的研究非常少。我们根据个体在面对各项物品和活动时的反应,评估了以个人为中心的规划中报告的偏好物品和活动在多大程度上代表了准确的偏好。我们与4名重度多重残疾人士举行了以个人为中心的规划会议,以绘制偏好图并确定与休闲相关的偏好。然后,通过观察每位参与者对各项物品和活动的趋近和回避反应,系统地评估了规划中报告的偏好样本。在规划中报告为偏好的抽样物品和活动中,根据后一种评估过程,42%表现为中等偏好,33%表现为强烈偏好。对于2名参与者,根据偏好评估,规划中确定的一些偏好并非他们喜欢的物品和活动,有些甚至经常被回避。这些结果表明,尽管以个人为中心的规划可能会为重度多重残疾人士确定一些准确的偏好,但应谨慎使用这种方法。结果还表明,此类规划应辅以系统的偏好评估,以确保所确定偏好的准确性。未来的研究领域集中在评估以个人为中心的规划的其他方面。

相似文献

3
Validating predicted activity preferences of individuals with severe disabilities.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1993 Summer;26(2):239-45. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-239.
4
Preference for water-related items in Angelman syndrome, Down syndrome and non-specific intellectual disability.
J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2008 Mar;33(1):59-64. doi: 10.1080/13668250701872126.
5
Further evaluation of low-ranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Spring;33(1):105-8. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-105.
7
Longitudinal analysis of the impact and cost of person-centered planning for people with intellectual disabilities in England.
Am J Ment Retard. 2006 Nov;111(6):400-16. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(2006)111[400:LAOTIA]2.0.CO;2.
8
Preferred curricular activities and reduced problem behaviors in students with intellectual disabilities.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Fall;27(3):493-504. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-493.
9
The Willowbrook futures project: a longitudinal analysis of person-centered planning.
Am J Ment Retard. 2004 Jan;109(1):63-76. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(2004)109<63:TWFPAL>2.0.CO;2.
10
Quantifying the process and outcomes of person-centered planning.
Am J Ment Retard. 2000 Sep;105(5):402-16. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(2000)105<0402:QTPAOO>2.0.CO;2.

引用本文的文献

1
Values: A Core Guiding Principle for Behavior-Analytic Intervention and Research.
Behav Anal Pract. 2021 Jul 15;15(1):115-125. doi: 10.1007/s40617-021-00595-3. eCollection 2022 Mar.
2
Communication Services and Supports for Individuals With Severe Disabilities: Guidance for Assessment and Intervention.
Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2016 Mar;121(2):121-38. doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-121.2.121.
3
Compatibility of person-centered planning and applied behavior analysis.
Behav Anal. 2001 Fall;24(2):271-81. doi: 10.1007/BF03392038.
4
5
Prescribing activities that engage passive residents. An innovative method.
J Gerontol Nurs. 2008 Jan;34(1):13-8. doi: 10.3928/00989134-20080101-08.
6
Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2007 Spring;40(1):157-66. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.177-05.
8
Response-restriction analysis: I. Assessment of activity preferences.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2003 Spring;36(1):47-58. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-47.

本文引用的文献

2
Defining, validating, and increasing indices of happiness among people with profound multiple disabilities.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Spring;29(1):67-78. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-67.
5
Validating predicted activity preferences of individuals with severe disabilities.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1993 Summer;26(2):239-45. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-239.
6
Preference testing: a comparison of two presentation methods.
Res Dev Disabil. 1994 Nov-Dec;15(6):439-55. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(94)90028-0.
7
Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Fall;18(3):249-55. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-249.
9
A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1989 Summer;22(2):171-9. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1989.22-171.
10

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验