The content validity of the Behaviour Support Plan Quality Evaluation tool (BSP-QEII) and its potential application in accommodation and day-support services for adults with intellectual disability.
The BSP-QEII, once kid-only, is now expert-validated for auditing adult ID behavior plans.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Experts checked if the BSP-QEII tool works for adults with ID.
The tool was built for kids, so they needed to test it on adult plans.
They agreed on which parts measure good support and added two new domains.
What they found
The experts said the tool fits adult services.
Two extra quality areas were needed for adult plans.
Overall, the BSP-QEII is now valid for auditing adult behavior plans.
How this fits with other research
Bigham et al. (2013) ran a sister study the same year.
That paper showed raters give the same scores when using the tool.
Together, the two papers let you trust both the tool’s items and its repeatability.
Vassos et al. (2023) later tried a short form for novices.
They found reliability still depends on PBS skill, so simple forms do not replace training.
This keeps the full BSP-QEII useful for trained staff.
Why it matters
You now have an expert-approved checklist for adult plans.
Use it to spot gaps, train staff, and show funders you meet quality standards.
Start with the full tool, not a short one, and train raters first.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pull your most recent adult BSP and score it with the BSP-QEII to find missing quality domains.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: The quality of support provided to people with disability who show challenging behaviour could be influenced by the quality of the behaviour support plans (BSPs) on which staff rely for direction. This study investigated the content validity of the Behaviour Support Plan Quality Evaluation tool (BSP-QEII), originally developed to guide the development of BSPs for children in school settings, and evaluated its application for use in accommodation and day-support services for adults with intellectual disability. METHOD: A three-round Delphi study involving a purposive sample of experienced behaviour support practitioners (n = 30) was conducted over an 8-week period. The analyses included deductive content analysis and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The 12 quality domains of the BSP-QEII were affirmed as valid for application in adult accommodation and day-support service settings. Two additional quality domains were suggested, relating to the provision of detailed background on the client and the need for plans to reflect contemporary service philosophy. Furthermore, the results suggest that some issues previously identified in the literature as being important for inclusion in BSPs might not currently be a priority for practitioners. These included: the importance of specifying replacement or alternative behaviours to be taught, descriptions of teaching strategies to be used, reinforcers, and the specification of objective goals against which to evaluate the success of the intervention programme. CONCLUSIONS: The BSP-QEII provides a potentially useful framework to guide and evaluate the development of BSPs in services for adults with intellectual disability. Further research is warranted to investigate why practitioners are potentially giving greater attention to some areas of intervention practice than others, even where research has demonstrated these others areas of practice could be important to achieving quality outcomes.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2013 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01602.x