Advertisement

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 59–67 | Cite as

Acceptability of reductive interventions for the control of inappropriate child behavior

  • Joseph C. Witt
  • Julene R. Robbins
Article

Abstract

Teacher attitudes about the acceptability of classroom intervention strategies were evaluated in two experiments. In both, teachers read descriptions of an intervention that was applied to a child with a behavior problem. In Experiment 1, an evaluation of six interventions for reducing inappropriate behavior suggested that one was highly acceptable (DRO), one was highly unacceptable (corporal punishment), and four ranged from mildly acceptable to mildly unacceptable (DRL, reprimands, time-out, and staying after school). In Experiment 2, the acceptability of the same intervention (staying after school) was evaluated as a function of who implemented it (teacher vs. principal). Analyses suggested that the teacher-implemented intervention was perceived as more acceptable. In both experiments, interventions were rated as less acceptable by highly experienced teachers versus those newer to the teaching profession. In addition, there was a trend for the acceptability of an intervention to vary as a function of the severity of the behavior problem to which it was applied.

Keywords

Behavior Problem Corporal Punishment Apply Behavior Analysis Classroom Intervention Head Start Teacher 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Algozzine, B., Ysseldyke, J., Christenson, S., & Thurlow, M. (1982).Teachers’ intervention choices for children exhibiting different behaviors in school (Research Report No. 76). Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  2. Hyman, I., & Wise, J. (Eds.) (1979).Corporal punishment in American education: Readings in history and practice. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Kazdin, A. E. (1980a). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259–273.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Kazdin, A. E. (1980b). Acceptability of time-out from reinforcement procedures for disruptive child behavior.Behavior Therapy, 11, 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Acceptability of child treatment techniques: The influence of treatment efficacy and adverse side effects.Behavior Therapy, 12, 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kazdin, A. E., French, N. H., & Sherick, R. B. (1981). Acceptability of alternative treatments for children: Evaluation of inpatient children, parents, and staff.Journal of Consulting and Cllinical Psychology, 49, 900–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lambert, N. M. (1976). Children’s problems and classroom interventions from the perspective of classroom teachers.Professional Psychology, 7, 507–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Millman, H. H., Schefer, C. E., Cohen, J. J. (1980).Therapies for school behavior problems: A handbook of practical interventions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1977).Applying behavior-analysis procedures with children and youth. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  10. Witt, J. C., Elliott, S. N., & Martens, B. K. (1984). Acceptability of behavioral interventions: The influence of amount of teacher time, seventy of behavior problem, and type of intervention.Behavioral Disorders, 10, 95–104.Google Scholar
  11. Witt, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (1983). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral interventions used in classrooms.Psychology in the Schools, 20, 510–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Elliott, S. N. (1984). Factors affecting teachers judgments of the acceptability of behavioral interventions: Time involvement, behavior problem severity, and type of intervention.Behavior Therapy, 15, 204–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Witt, J. C., Moe, G., Gutkin, T., & Andrews, L. (in press). The effect of saying the same thing in different ways: The problem of language and jargon in school-based consultation.Journal of School Psychology.Google Scholar
  14. Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph C. Witt
    • 1
  • Julene R. Robbins
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge
  2. 2.University of Nebraska

Personalised recommendations