desires, and dissatisfactions. It is the job of trained professionals, behavior analysts in this case, to work with parents, educators, and the individual to conduct the functional assessment procedures described above. The information that is collected is used to develop hypotheses regarding the function or motivation of the behavior. Professionals can then formulate a comprehensive plan to safely and effectively reduce the challenging behavior. Best practice standards emphasize the identification, acquisition, and maintenance of more appropriate alternative behaviors so that the individual can express his/her needs, wants, and dissatisfactions (National Research Council, 2001). Teaching new adaptive skills is one component of what is known as a Positive Behavior Support (PBS) plan. These plans may also include environmental modifications in settings in which the individual participates, changes to instructional materials, and a high frequency of positive feedback. For the majority of individuals, these positive procedures are sufficient to decrease the dangerous behavior. Not only does the maladaptive behavior diminish, but also the person’s repertoire of appropriate skills is expanded, providing him or her with the skills necessary to engage in meaningful social interaction and other activities.
Autism New Jersey opposes the use of restrictive procedures when certain conditions are not met.
In some situations, however, the functional assessment and intervention may be insufficient to reduce some instances of problematic behavior. This is particularly troubling in the case of aggression or self-injury in
which the individual remains in danger of severely harming him/herself or others. These behaviors unquestionably compromise health, safety, and quality of life. After exhausting all possible positive interventions designed to reduce the behavior and teach more appropriate replacement skills, other potentially more restrictive options may need to be considered. The work does not end with the decision to use a restrictive procedure. Issues that must be continually addressed are: the effectiveness of the intervention, how best to fade and ultimately terminate the intervention, and to what extent has the individual’s quality of life benefited from the use of the intervention. Among the questions to be asked at this time include, but are not limited to: Has there been an increase, decrease, or no change in the frequency of the target behavior ? Has the duration of target behavior decreased, increased or remained constant ? Were there unintended side effects that impeded implementation and thus, effectiveness ? When and under what conditions can the restrictive procedure be either faded or terminated ? D espite the use of a potentially restrictive intervention, is the individual now able to participate in meaningful learning experiences, acquire new skills, become more socially involved, and spend more time in the community because he or she no longer engages in the harmful behavior ? Is the individual’s health and safety secure ? E mergency situations also necessitate consideration and planning as these situations demand caregivers’ swift action to minimize and prevent harm to all individuals. E mergency situations may require the temporary use of restrictive procedures prior to a functional assessment and intervention plan. The use of any restrictive procedure should be documented and reviewed by the treatment team. Crisis episodes should serve as an impetus for team discussion to determine the necessity of a more detailed plan to best serve an individual’s needs and promote quality of life.
9
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker