在功能性交流训练中比较照顾者和儿童对 Mand 地形图的偏好

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities Pub Date : 2024-04-27 DOI:10.1007/s10882-024-09959-3
Cynthia P. Livingston, Jordan E. DeBrine, Isaac J. Melanson, Daniel Kwak, Brittany Tomasi
{"title":"在功能性交流训练中比较照顾者和儿童对 Mand 地形图的偏好","authors":"Cynthia P. Livingston, Jordan E. DeBrine, Isaac J. Melanson, Daniel Kwak, Brittany Tomasi","doi":"10.1007/s10882-024-09959-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Functional communication training (FCT; Carr &amp; Durand, 1985) is frequently utilized as a treatment for socially maintained problem behavior (Tiger et al., 2008). Although FCT is a viable treatment option for the reduction of problem behavior, researchers have identified several variables related to the selection of the functional communication response (FCR) topography that may influence treatment outcomes, including individual and caregiver preference. However, there may be times in which the target individual and caregiver preference do not match. Given this, there is a need for procedures to identify and compare both child and caregiver preferences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify a preferred FCR topography via mand topography assessment and compare results of the mand topography assessment with a formal assessment of caregiver preference. We found that both child and caregiver participants demonstrated a preference for at least one FCR topography. Although we identified a preference for both the child and caregiver participants, child and caregiver preference did not match, except for a partial match for one caregiver-child dyad. Clinical implications and recommendations for navigating next steps when client and caregiver preferences do not align are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47565,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Caregivers’ and Children’s Preference for Mand Topography During Functional Communication Training\",\"authors\":\"Cynthia P. Livingston, Jordan E. DeBrine, Isaac J. Melanson, Daniel Kwak, Brittany Tomasi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10882-024-09959-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Functional communication training (FCT; Carr &amp; Durand, 1985) is frequently utilized as a treatment for socially maintained problem behavior (Tiger et al., 2008). Although FCT is a viable treatment option for the reduction of problem behavior, researchers have identified several variables related to the selection of the functional communication response (FCR) topography that may influence treatment outcomes, including individual and caregiver preference. However, there may be times in which the target individual and caregiver preference do not match. Given this, there is a need for procedures to identify and compare both child and caregiver preferences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify a preferred FCR topography via mand topography assessment and compare results of the mand topography assessment with a formal assessment of caregiver preference. We found that both child and caregiver participants demonstrated a preference for at least one FCR topography. Although we identified a preference for both the child and caregiver participants, child and caregiver preference did not match, except for a partial match for one caregiver-child dyad. Clinical implications and recommendations for navigating next steps when client and caregiver preferences do not align are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-024-09959-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-024-09959-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

功能性沟通训练(FCT;Carr & Durand, 1985)经常被用来治疗社会性问题行为(Tiger 等人,2008 年)。虽然功能性沟通训练是减少问题行为的一种可行的治疗方法,但研究人员发现,与选择功能性沟通反应(FCR)拓扑相关的几个变量可能会影响治疗效果,其中包括个人和照顾者的偏好。然而,有时目标个体和照顾者的偏好可能并不一致。有鉴于此,我们需要一种程序来识别和比较儿童和看护人的偏好。因此,本研究的目的是通过颌骨地形图评估确定首选的 FCR 地形图,并将颌骨地形图评估结果与护理人偏好的正式评估结果进行比较。我们发现,儿童和照护者都表现出对至少一种 FCR 拓扑的偏好。虽然我们确定了儿童和看护者的偏好,但儿童和看护者的偏好并不匹配,只有一个看护者-儿童二人组的偏好部分匹配。本文讨论了当客户和照顾者的偏好不一致时的临床意义以及如何采取下一步行动的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Caregivers’ and Children’s Preference for Mand Topography During Functional Communication Training

Functional communication training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) is frequently utilized as a treatment for socially maintained problem behavior (Tiger et al., 2008). Although FCT is a viable treatment option for the reduction of problem behavior, researchers have identified several variables related to the selection of the functional communication response (FCR) topography that may influence treatment outcomes, including individual and caregiver preference. However, there may be times in which the target individual and caregiver preference do not match. Given this, there is a need for procedures to identify and compare both child and caregiver preferences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify a preferred FCR topography via mand topography assessment and compare results of the mand topography assessment with a formal assessment of caregiver preference. We found that both child and caregiver participants demonstrated a preference for at least one FCR topography. Although we identified a preference for both the child and caregiver participants, child and caregiver preference did not match, except for a partial match for one caregiver-child dyad. Clinical implications and recommendations for navigating next steps when client and caregiver preferences do not align are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: The Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities is an interdisciplinary forum for the publication of original research and clinical reports from a variety of fields serving persons with developmental and physical disabilities. Submissions from researchers, clinicians, and related professionals in the fields of psychology, rehabilitation, special education, kinesiology, counseling, social work, psychiatry, nursing, and rehabilitation medicine are considered. Investigations utilizing group comparisons as well as single-case experimental designs are of primary interest. In addition, case studies that are of particular clinical relevance or that describe innovative evaluation and intervention techniques are welcome. All research and clinical reports should contain sufficient procedural detail so that readers can clearly understand what was done, how it was done, and why the strategy was selected. Rigorously conducted replication studies utilizing group and single-case designs are welcome irrespective of results obtained. In addition, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and theoretical discussions that contribute substantially to understanding the problems and strengths of persons with developmental and physical disabilities are considered for publication. Authors are encouraged to preregister empirical studies, replications, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses in a relevant public database and to include such information with their submission to the journal. Authors are also encouraged, where possible and applicable, to deposit data that support the findings of their research in a public repository (see detailed “Research Data Policy” module in the journal’s Instructions for Authors). In response to the need for increased clinical and research endeavors with persons with developmental and physical disabilities, the journal is cross-categorical and unbiased methodologically.
期刊最新文献
Incorporating Choice: Examining the Beliefs and Practices of Behavior Analysts Working with Individuals with Disabilities Differences in Executive Functioning for children with additional learning needs and Autism Spectrum Disorder or Attachment Disorder Enhancing Assent and Treatment Outcomes: A Case Study on Responding to Aversive Ambient Auditory Stimuli for an Autistic Adult Perspectives of Transition-Aged Youth with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities about Self-Advocacy and Civic Engagement The Use of Multisensory Environments with Individuals with Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1