Search

Contains fulltext : 219574.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) This study examined whether teachers' perceptions of students' behavior (referring to halo effects) and the behavior of teacher-perceived friends (referring to association effects) influenced teachers' ability to recognize students identified as bullies, victims, and prosocial by their peers. Data came from 1,458 children (M age = 10.5, 47.5% girls) and 56 teachers (M age = 41.4, 63.5% females). Perceived likeability was associated with decreased odds and teachers' perceptions of popularity and externalizing behavior were associated with increased odds for teacher attunement to bullying. Perceived likeability and affiliation were associated with decreased odds for teacher attunement to victimized students. Teachers' perceptions of externalizing behavior were associated with decreased odds, whereas teachers' perceptions of affiliation and academic competence were associated with increased odds for attunement to prosociality. Finally, a positive association was found between teacher attunement and the average behavior of teacher-perceived friends for bullying, victimization, and prosociality. 18 p.

Background Non-pharmacological interventions are recommended for the treatment of challenging behaviours in individuals with intellectual disabilities by clinical guidelines. However, evidence for their effectiveness is ambiguous. The aim of the current meta-analysis is to update the existing evidence, to investigate long-term outcome, and to examine whether intervention type, delivery mode, and study design were associated with differences in effectiveness. Method An electronic search was conducted using the databases Medline, Eric, PsychINFO and Cinahl. Studies with experimental or quasi-experimental designs were included. We performed an overall random-effect meta-analysis and subgroup analyses. Results We found a significant moderate overall effect of non-pharmacological interventions on challenging behaviours (d = 0.573, 95% CI [0.352-0.795]), and this effect appears to be longlasting. Interventions combining mindfulness and behavioural techniques showed to be more effective than other interventions. However, this result should be interpreted with care due to possible overestimation of the subgroup analysis. No differences in effectiveness were found across assessment times, delivery modes or study designs. Conclusions Non-pharmacological interventions appear to be moderately effective on the short and long term in reducing challenging behaviours in adults with intellectual disabilities.

Research suggests that restrictive measures are widely used on adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities. In the Netherlands, restrictive measures are defined as all measures that limit the freedom of a person. In most countries, legislation and policies that seek to reduce the use of restrictive measures focus on seclusion and mechanical and physical restraints. The study aimed to investigate the extent to which restrictive practices are used in the care of adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities while also exploring the attitudes of support staff toward these interventions. A survey study was done among a nationally representative Dutch research sample consisting of support staff. A structured questionnaire was completed by 195 staff members (response of 68.7%) working in settings providing care for people with intellectual disabilities. The measures generally used by staff members who work with adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities involved restricting the freedom of movement and so‐called social restrictions (such as limiting the use of mobile phones). Nearly all respondents considered restrictive measures to be justified in the case of danger, physical aggression, or sexually abusive behavior (87.8–96.8%). Frequently mentioned reasons for using restrictive measures were averting or avoiding danger (90.4 and 83.0%, respectively) and calming the adolescent (63.8%). Although seclusion and mechanical and physical restraints were generally considered most intrusive, staff members were aware that social restrictions could also be instrusive. The fact that current policies do not address these measures makes support staff question the lawfulness of their actions. As well as staff training to reduce the use of restrictive measures, rules, and legislation are also needed to clarify the options and limits to using such measures in the professional care of adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities.