Staff attributions of the causes of challenging behaviour in children and adults with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities.
Direct-care staff blame biology for severe behavior but admit they don’t really know.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team gave the CHABA survey to 85 direct-care staff. All staff worked with children or adults who have profound intellectual and multiple disabilities.
The survey asks staff to rate how much they agree with 30 statements about why challenging behavior happens. Answers fall into four buckets: biomedical, emotional, behavioral, or environmental causes.
What they found
Staff picked biomedical reasons most often. Yet every cause scored below the midpoint. That means staff said, “Maybe, but I’m not sure.”
In short, workers blame biology the most, but they still feel clueless about why behaviors occur.
How this fits with other research
Hastings (1997) built the CHABA tool. The 2016 study simply used that same scale on a new group.
Lambrechts et al. (2010) watched staff in real time. Staff jumped straight to stopping the behavior with words. The new survey shows they also jump to a “body problem” story in their heads.
Simó-Pinatella et al. (2013) found social and cultural triggers predict most challenging behavior. Staff in the 2016 survey barely trusted any cause, especially not social ones. The two studies do not clash; they just look through different lenses. Data says environment matters, yet staff still shrug.
Why it matters
Low-confidence staff are hesitant staff. If your team can’t name why a behavior happens, they will default to quick fixes or medical referrals. Start by teaching them to spot clear environmental events, then link those events to behavior during your next FBA training.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one client’s top challenging behavior and walk staff through a 5-minute ABC scan so they can SEE environment-behavior links.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A study has shown that staff do not generally perceive challenging behaviour in people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) as being of serious consequence. In this study we aimed to gain a better understanding of the causal explanations that direct care and support staff give for challenging behaviour in this group. The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to determine the way staff attribute challenging behaviour in children and adults with PIMD; and (2) to analyse whether more experienced staff attribute challenging behaviour in children and adults with PIMD differently than less experienced staff. In total, 195 direct support staff and an equal number of children and adults with PIMD participated in the study. Direct support staff filled out the Challenging behaviour Attribution Scale (five causal explanatory models of challenging behaviour) to explain challenging behaviour in one individual that they supported. The results show that direct support staff as a whole report the biomedical model as the most plausible explanation for challenging behaviour in children and adults with PIMD. However, in the present study the mean scores on all models are low. This might indicate that a large number of staff found none of the models particularly useful as possible explanations of challenging behaviour in people with PIMD. This could mean that staff have difficulties stating the cause of challenging behaviour in this group. Another possible explanation could be that there is little scientific knowledge about causing and maintaining factors of challenging behaviour in people with PIMD. It could also mean that staff have additional explanations for challenging behaviour in this target group that are not mentioned in the instrument used. Future research should address these issues. No differences were found between more experienced and less experienced direct support staff.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2016 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2015.10.014