Practitioner Development

Investigating the relationship between stress and worker behaviour.

Rose et al. (1998) · Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR 1998
★ The Verdict

When house staff feel squeezed, they give fewer high-fives and kind words—so shore up staff support to keep resident care warm.

✓ Read this if BCBAs running residential or day programs for adults with IDD.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who only see clients in outpatient clinics and never coach direct-care staff.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team visited British group homes for adults with intellectual disability. They asked staff about job demands and support. Then they watched how staff talked and played with residents.

Homes were split into high-stress and low-stress groups. No extra training or treatment was given. The goal was to see if stress levels changed daily care.

02

What they found

High-stress homes had fewer friendly chats, smiles, and joint activities. Staff in these homes said they felt more demands and less backup from bosses and co-workers.

Low-stress homes looked different. Staff joked, praised, and helped residents more often. The link was clear: when staff strain goes up, warm interaction goes down.

03

How this fits with other research

Malone (1999) built on this the next year. The author made a 56-item survey that names the exact demands and supports the 1998 paper noticed. Use it to spot trouble spots in your own building.

Whitehouse et al. (2014) widened the lens to mothers. They found strong parent-school ties cut maternal stress. The same formula—more support, less strain—works for families too.

Whitehouse et al. (2014) also flipped the view to adults with ID. They showed stress harms the clients’ own mental health. So staff mood affects resident mood, and resident mood can boomerang back.

Cantwell et al. (2014) added mastery and social support as buffers. Their caregivers stayed healthier when they felt in control and had friends to call. Together these studies say: stress is shared; support must be shared too.

04

Why it matters

You can’t fix resident happiness without checking staff wellness. Add a two-minute mood scan to shift huddles. Share praise aloud and rotate tough tasks. Small boosts in support give you bigger smiles, more cooperation, and less turnover—all before lunch.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Start each shift by asking staff to name one thing they need today—then help get it within the hour.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
survey
Population
intellectual disability
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

Direct care staff working in six residential group homes for people with intellectual disability were asked to complete a questionnaire which asked for information on levels of stress (anxiety and depression), the types of demand experienced by the staff, the support they received and the constraints they faced at work. Staff were also observed at work using a schedule which detailed who they interacted with, the content and type of interaction, and what activities staff were involved in. Measurement of workers' anxiety and depression levels confirmed management assessments of staff stress levels in the homes: two residential group homes were classified as 'low stress' and four as 'high stress'. A number of differences emerged between the two groups. Staff in the high stress homes reported greater demands and less support than those in the low stress homes. Higher levels of interaction were found between staff and residents in low stress houses, where more of the interaction was given as assistance and positive interactions. However, activities in higher-stress group homes appeared to be more community oriented, with staff spending a much greater amount of time out of the house. The importance of these results for both staff and residents is discussed, and suggestions for further work are made.

Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 1998 · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2788.1998.00115.x