Department of Behavioral Psychology, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2024;57(4):840-858. doi: 10.1002/jaba.2906. Epub 2024 Aug 6.
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.
尽管功能分析在确定挑战性行为的功能方面非常有效,但临床医生报告说并非总是使用它们,部分原因是出于安全考虑。了解研究人员如何采用安全措施来降低风险,特别是对于自伤行为 (SIB) 等危险行为,对于指导研究和实践非常重要。然而,Weeden 等人进行的自伤行为功能分析范围审查的结果表明,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。我们观察到除了 Weeden 等人审查的两种保护措施类型外,其他所有保护措施的报告都有所增加。此外,我们还包括了 Weeden 等人没有报告的新保护措施。总的来说,69.52%的研究至少包含一种保护程序,44.39%规定使用保护措施是为了安全。自 Weeden 等人呼吁提高参与者保护措施的描述以来,报告似乎有所增加。