Service Delivery

An evaluation of hospital-based specialized staffed housing for people with seriously challenging behaviours.

Emerson et al. (1992) · Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR 1992
★ The Verdict

Smaller houses alone do not help adults with profound ID and challenging behavior unless staff are trained to boost engagement.

✓ Read this if BCBAs planning residential moves or writing staff training for adults with severe challenging behavior.
✗ Skip if Clinicians focused only on outpatient clinics or family homes.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Mazur et al. (1992) watched adults with profound intellectual disability move from a big hospital ward into small hospital-run houses.

The team tracked how much time people spent doing useful tasks and how often serious challenging behavior happened.

They also counted how often staff talked to or helped each resident.

02

What they found

The new houses did not give people more things to do.

Challenging behavior stayed the same.

Staff talked more, but a few residents got most of the attention.

03

How this fits with other research

Michael (1995) and Mansell (1994) show the same kind of move can work if it happens in the community and staff numbers are higher.

McMillan et al. (1999) proves the missing piece is staff training: after staff learned active support, engagement rose even in the same houses.

McSweeney et al. (1993) seems to disagree: they saw problem behavior rise after a community move. The difference is their group had mixed diagnoses and less behavior support during the shift.

04

Why it matters

A new roof is not enough. You must also teach staff how to prompt, praise and share attention evenly. Before you cheer a placement, ask: "What training will follow the furniture?" Write that plan into the behavior plan from day one.

05

What this study did

Mazur et al. (1992) watched adults with profound intellectual disability move from a big hospital ward into small hospital-run houses.

The team tracked how much time people spent doing useful tasks and how often serious challenging behavior happened.

They also counted how often staff talked to or helped each resident.

06

What they found

The new houses did not give people more things to do.

Challenging behavior stayed the same.

Staff talked more, but a few residents got most of the attention.

07

How this fits with other research

Michael (1995) and Mansell (1994) show the same kind of move can work if it happens in the community and staff numbers are higher.

McMillan et al. (1999) proves the missing piece is staff training: after staff learned active support, engagement rose even in the same houses.

McSweeney et al. (1993) seems to disagree: they saw problem behavior rise after a community move. The difference is their group had mixed diagnoses and less behavior support during the shift.

08

Why it matters

A new roof is not enough. You must also teach staff how to prompt, praise and share attention evenly. Before you cheer a placement, ask: "What training will follow the furniture?" Write that plan into the behavior plan from day one.

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

Add a staff active-support workshop to the move-in calendar before the first client arrives.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
case series
Population
intellectual disability
Finding
null

03Original abstract

Resident and staff activity was observed in two hospital-based staffed houses for adults with severe or profound mental handicap, and seriously challenging behaviours. The results indicated that: (1) staffing resources were inefficiently deployed, leading to low levels of support being provided to service users; (2) staff attention was inequitably distributed across users, individuals showing the highest levels of seriously challenging behaviours received disproportionately more staff attention; (3) users spent little of the time they were observed engaged in constructive activities. Comparisons with data collected previously on four of the users in institutional settings indicated that: (4) no overall changes occurred in either user participation in constructive activities or (5) duration of challenging behaviours; and (6) overall, more staff contact was provided in the specialized housing projects compared to previous institutional settings. The results are discussed in terms of the determinants of quality in residential provision for people with seriously challenging behaviour.

Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 1992 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.1992.tb00529.x