behavioural knowledge, causal beliefs and self-efficacy as predictors of special educators’...

144

Abstract

Background Theoretical models and emergingempirical data suggest that the emotional reactionsof staff to challenging behaviours may affect theirresponses to challenging behaviours and their psy-chological well-being. However, there have been few studies focusing on factors related to staff emotional reactions.Methods Seventy staff working in educational environments with children with intellectual dis-ability and/or autism completed a self-report questionnaire that measured demographic factors,behavioural causal beliefs, behavioural knowledge,perceived self-efficacy, and emotional reactions tochallenging behaviours.Results Regression analyses revealed that behav-ioural causal beliefs were a positive predictor,and self-efficacy and behavioural knowledge werenegative predictors of negative emotional reactionsto challenging behaviours. Staff with formal quali-fications also reported more negative emotional

Correspondence: Dr Richard Hastings, Department of Psychology,University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO BJ,UK (e-mail: [email protected]).

reactions. No other demographic factors emergedas significant predictors.Conclusions The results suggest that behaviouralcausal beliefs, low self-efficacy and low behaviouralknowledge may make staff vulnerable to experien-cing negative emotional reactions to challengingbehaviours. Researchers and clinicians need toaddress these issues in staff who work with peoplewith challenging behaviours.

Keywords behavioural knowledge, challengingbehaviour, emotional reactions, self-efficacy, specialeducation, staff

Introduction

Existing behavioural models of challenging behav-iours suggest that such actions are best understoodvia a systems analysis, with staff behaviour affectingchallenging behaviours and vice versa (e.g. Taylor &Carr ; Hastings & Remington ; Oliver). C. Oliver (e.g. Hall & Oliver ; Oliver) has argued that the immediate behaviouralresponses of staff to challenging behaviours aremaintained by the avoidance of the negative emo-tions elicited by challenging behaviours. Self-report,and experimental research with staff and families

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

pp –

© Blackwell Science Ltd

Behavioural knowledge, causal beliefs and self-efficacy aspredictors of special educators’ emotional reactions tochallenging behaviours

R. P. Hastings & T. Brown

Centre for Behavioural Research Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, Department of Psychology, University ofSouthampton, Southampton, UK


R. P. Hastings & T. Brown • Emotional reactions to challenging behaviours145

© Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research , –

has supported the position that challenging behaviours are generally associated with negativeemotions and very rarely with positive feelings(Bromley & Emerson ; Hastings ; Hastings& Remington ; Chavira et al. ; Mossmanet al. in press).

Although there are, as yet, no published studiesexploring a potential link between the negativeemotions of staff and their behaviour, recentresearch has shown that staff emotional reactions to challenging behaviours are related to burnout(Mitchell & Hastings ). Therefore, theoreticalanalyses and emerging empirical data have estab-lished the significance of staff emotions to the careof people with intellectual disability (ID). However,we know very little about the factors which mightpredict staff emotional reactions to challengingbehaviours. This information is likely to be practi-cally useful. In particular, identifying variablesrelated to staff emotional reactions may lead to thedevelopment of staff training and support interven-tions addressing this issue.

To date, three factors have been identified whichaffect staff or parent reports of their emotionalreactions to challenging behaviours. First, thetopography of challenging behaviour appears to bea significant factor. For example, staff report morenegative emotions in response to aggressive andself-injurious behaviours than to stereotyped behav-iours (Hastings & Remington ). Secondly,the function of the challenging behaviour may besalient. Mossman et al. (in press) compared staffreports of the negative emotional reactions to actedvideo material showing a young man engaging inself-injurious behaviours. Staff reported more nega-tive emotions after watching videos in which theactor engaged in self-injurious behaviour than inresponse to a matched video where no self-injurywas displayed. Those who watched a video depict-ing self-injurious behaviour were shown carefullyscripted films showing self-injury serving one ofthree functions: () attention-seeking, () taskavoidance or () a non-social function (randomlypresented self-injury). Staff who watched the taskavoidance scenario reported more negative emo-tional reactions than the other groups.

As predicted by general theories of helpingbehaviour (e.g. Weiner ), the third factor foundto be related to caregiver emotional reactions to

challenging behaviour is their attributions about thebehaviour. Specifically, Latina mothers of childrenwith ID were more likely to report negative emo-tional reactions to their child’s challenging behav-iour if they also attributed responsibility for thebehaviour to the child (Chavira et al. ). Fur-thermore, Dagnan et al. () found that negativeemotional reactions to challenging behaviour wereassociated with attributions of controllability in agroup of staff working with adults with ID.

Of these existing research findings, the relation-ship between staff attributions and emotional reac-tions to challenging behaviour holds promise as atarget for intervention. However, there are likely tobe other factors which predict staff emotional reac-tions. In particular, there has been considerableinterest in the effects of staff experience, knowledgeand training in the literature on staff beliefs aboutchallenging behaviour (for a review, see Hastingsb). For example, staff with higher levels ofbehavioural knowledge or who have attendedbehavioural training programmes have been foundto be more likely to adopt behavioural causal beliefsand endorse behavioural intervention approaches(Berryman et al. ; Oliver et al. ). However,much general psychological theory (e.g. Lazarus &Folkman ) emphasizes that objective measuresof the ability to have an effect on events are notnecessarily as important as individuals’ perceptionsof their efficacy. Therefore, it is important toaddress both objective (e.g. relevant knowledge)and subjective (i.e. perceived self-efficacy) assess-ments of efficacy.

The purpose of the present study was to explorepsychological factors with a potential for inter-vention which may be related to staff emotionalreactions to challenging behaviours. Specifically,the present authors drew on previous research identifying a relationship between attributions and emotional reactions to challenging behavioursby measuring staff causal beliefs. They focused oncausal beliefs which are related closely to the domi-nant behaviour analytic approach to the under-standing of challenging behaviours. The presentauthors also measured staff behavioural knowledgeand their perceptions of their self-efficacy in dealingwith challenging behaviours. Finally, they exploredthe potential role of staff demographic variables inpredicting their emotional reactions to challenging




behaviours. Because of the lack of data on the emo-tional reactions of staff in education contexts, thesample chosen for study worked in state and privateschools for children with ID and/or autism.

Subjects and methods

Participants

Seventy staff working in four schools for childrenwith ID participated in the research. One schoolserved children with autism between seven and years of age, two schools served children with ID(one served ª children aged – years and theother ª children aged – years), and thefinal school served adolescents with severe IDand/or autism who displayed challenging behav-iours. The staff sample contained male and

female staff; staff had professional qualificationsin education (teaching) and were unqualifiedsupport staff. The average age of the staff was. years (SD = .), and they had worked withchildren with ID and/or autism for an average of. months (SD = .).

Staff questionnaire

Data were gathered using a self-report question-naire containing five sections. In the first briefsection, the participants were asked for demo-graphic information about themselves, and theirspecial education experience and qualifications (see ‘Participants’ above). The four remaining sections of the questionnaire contained measures of causal beliefs, self-efficacy, behavioural knowledge and emotional reactions to challengingbehaviours.

Behavioural knowledge

Staff completed Furtkamp et al.’s () ShortForm B of O’Dell et al.’s () Knowledge ofBehavioural Principles as Applied to Children(KBPAC) questionnaire. This measure contains

scenario-based, multiple-choice-format items. Eachscenario presents an issue related to children’sproblem behaviour or other aspects of their devel-opment. Respondents choose between four options,one of which is deemed ‘correct’ in that it reflects a

behavioural approach or perspective on the issuepresented. Thus, responses to each item are scoredas correct or incorrect, and a total score betweenzero and is generated.

Behavioural causal beliefs

Items from three subscales of the ChallengingBehaviour Attributions questionnaire (Hastingsa) were used to measure staff behaviouralcausal beliefs. In total, the items from theLearned Behaviour (beliefs that challenging behav-iours are maintained by positive and negative reinforcement processes), Stimulation (beliefs thatchallenging behaviours serve self-stimulatory func-tions) and Physical Environment (beliefs that challenging behaviours are related to environmentalsetting events) subscales were used. Each causalstatement is rated on a fully anchored five-pointscale ranging from ‘very unlikely’ as a cause of challenging behaviours to ‘very likely’ as a cause.Ratings are assigned a value between – (veryunlikely) and + (very likely). Summing the ratingsfrom these items generated a score for staffbehavioural causal beliefs. This scale had a verygood level of reliability in the present study (Cronbach’s a = .).

Efficacy in dealing with challenging behaviours

Staff perceived self-efficacy in relation to challeng-ing behaviours was measured using a scale of fiveefficacy items: feelings of () confidence, () controland () satisfaction in dealing with challengingbehaviours; () a perception that they have a posi-tive impact on the challenging behaviours whichthey deal with; and () a rating of how difficult theyfind it to work with challenging behaviours. Eachitem is rated on a seven-point scale and summingthe ratings on the five items derives a total score.Although no other psychometric data are availableon this scale, it was found to have an excellent levelof internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = .) forthe present sample.

Emotional reactions to challenging behaviour

Staff typical emotional reactions to challengingbehaviour were measured using the scale developedby Mitchell & Hastings (). Using a four-point




scale, staff are asked to rate the frequency withwhich they have experienced each of emotions inresponse to recent incidents of challenging behav-iour directed toward or witnessed by them. Twosubscale scores are obtained: () feelings of depres-sion/anger; and () feelings of fear/anxiety. Thesescales, derived through factor analysis, have goodinternal consistency and test–rest reliability, and arerelatively unaffected by social desirability responsebiases (Mitchell & Hastings ). In the presentstudy, the scales were also found to have goodlevels of internal consistency, as assessed usingCronbach’s a coefficient (fear/anxiety = .;depression/anger = .).

Procedure

Special education staff were invited to participate inthe research by their head teacher, who distributedquestionnaires to all teachers and support staff intheir school. One hundred and forty questionnaireswere given to the head teachers. Eighty-seven staffreturned a questionnaire. Thus, the raw responserate was %. This was likely to have been affectedby the fact that the questionnaires were completedand returned anonymously. Although head teacherswere asked to issue a verbal reminder to their staff,it was not possible to issue individually addressedreminders. No data are available on those who didnot return a questionnaire

Out of the returned questionnaires, containedmissing data. Four omitted either the behaviouralknowledge or the self-efficacy measure, and thus,were excluded from the analysis. Furthermore,

staff omitted one or more of the demographic ques-tions contained in the staff questionnaire. Thesestaff were also excluded from the analyses reportedhere. They were all from one school where therewas concern about giving information that could beused to identify staff members, despite assurancesof confidentiality. Independent sample t-tests wereused to compare these staff with those who fullycompleted their questionnaires on the behaviouralknowledge, causal beliefs, self-efficacy and emo-tional reactions scores. These tests showed no significant differences between the two groups.Although those with incomplete demographic datadid not differ on these study variables, it is notclear whether the participating sample were repre-

sentative of the staff groups in the four schools surveyed on demographic measures.

Results

Before conducting the main statistical analyses,continuous variables (i.e. age, length of experience,knowledge, beliefs, efficacy and emotional reac-tions) were tested for their suitability for parametricstatistical analysis. This was achieved through aseries of one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov testswhere each variable is compared to a normal distri-bution. These tests, bar one, were non-significant,indicating that the study variables approximatednormal distributions. Participants’ length of experi-ence in ID service settings was positively skewedand did not approximate a normal distribution.A square root transformation of this variable wasnormally distributed (as tested with a further Kolmogorov–Smirnov analysis). The regressionanalyses reported below were repeated using thetransformed variable in place of the original scores.However, the results were unaffected and so theseadditional analyses are not discussed further.

The main analysis focused on two regressionmodels: one for each dimension of negative emo-tional reactions to challenging behaviours. All of the predictor variables were entered simultaneouslyinto the regression models. Thus, the results can beinterpreted as representing the independent con-tribution of each variable to the prediction of negative emotional reactions (i.e. after controllingfor all other variables entered into the regressionanalyses). The regression models for both depres-sion/anger emotions (R = ., F7,62 = .,P < .) and fear/anxiety emotions (R = .,F7,62 = ., P < .) were significant. The resultsof these analyses are summarized in Table .

Table shows that perceived self-efficacy was anegative predictor of negative emotional reactionsto challenging behaviour. Those with greater feelings of efficacy in dealing with challengingbehaviours reported fewer fear/anxiety and depres-sion/anger emotional reactions. Similarly, behav-ioural knowledge was a negative predictor, but only of depression/anger emotional reactions. Forfear/anxiety emotional reactions, the belief thatbehavioural causal factors were implicated in chal-




lenging behaviours was a positive predictor. Finally,the only demographic factor found to make a sig-nificant independent contribution to the predictionof emotional reactions to challenging behaviour was the qualified status of staff. School staff withformal teaching qualifications reported moredepression/anger emotional reactions to challengingbehaviours than unqualified support staff.

Discussion

As in previous research, the present study foundthere to be some relationship between aspects ofstaff causal beliefs and their emotional reactions to challenging behaviours. Specifically, staff whoviewed behavioural factors as likely to be causes ofchallenging behaviours reported more fear/anxietyemotional reactions. There was also evidence thatformal qualifications and behavioural knowledgehad significant but directionally different effects onstaff-reported emotional reactions to challengingbehaviours. Having been formally trained as ateacher was associated with more depression/angeremotional reactions, whereas those with higherlevels of behavioural knowledge were less likely toreport these emotional reactions. Of most signifi-cance in the present analyses was that staff per-ceptions of their own efficacy in dealing withchallenging behaviours independently predictedboth fear/anxiety and depression/anger emotionalreactions.

This last finding was particularly important giventhat the effect was independent of any effects of

levels of behavioural knowledge or formal quali-fications. The effect also replicated across bothdimensions of emotional reactions to challengingbehaviours. This effect of staff self-efficacy in rela-tion to challenging behaviours needs to be repli-cated in other samples. If it becomes established asan important factor, research is needed in order toexplore what affects staff perceived self-efficacy inthe context of working with challenging behaviours.In particular, staff feelings of efficacy may berelated to their perceptions of their own skills ordeficiencies, their perceptions of barriers or facili-tating factors in their working environment, or toboth. Furthermore, research could usefully addresshow feelings of self-efficacy change over time,which factors are related to fluctuations in self-efficacy and how these dynamic changes are related to staff emotional reactions.

Two of the remaining findings are worthy of discussion because of their apparently counter-intuitive nature. First, those who endorsed behav-ioural causal models for challenging behaviourreported more negative emotional reactions. If suchbeliefs were associated with increased behaviouralknowledge, then we might have expected thereverse relationship. However, within the presentstudy, behavioural causal beliefs and behaviouralknowledge were not actually correlated [r(70) =-., P = not significant]. The observed effect ofbehavioural causal beliefs may be explained by thefact that such beliefs emphasize causal factorsexternal to the child (i.e. the social and physicalenvironment). Thus, by implication, staff endorsingthese beliefs may feel more responsible for the

Table 1 Results of the regression modelsfor the two dimensions of emotional reactions to challenging behaviours

Fear/anxiety Depression/anger

Predictor b P-value b P-value

Behavioural knowledge -0.124 NS* -0.325 <0.01Behavioural causal beliefs 0.293 <0.05 0.110 NSSelf-efficacy -0.298 <0.05 -0.449 <0.001Length of experience 0.005 NS 0.010 NSSex 0.065 NS 0.018 NSFormal qualifications 0.015 NS -0.312 <0.05Age -0.098 NS 0.016 NS

* NS: not significant.




behaviours and are more stressed as a result. Thenotion of responsibility can be invoked in a differ-ent way to explain the fact that qualified staffreported more negative emotional reactions. A qual-ified teacher would typically have been ‘in charge’of a class of children in all of the schools surveyed,and thus, they may have felt more responsibilitywhen children displayed challenging behaviours.These explanations for the present findings couldbe explored with further research data.

The main weakness of the present study is themissing demographic information from a subsampleof the participants. Additional analyses showed thatthis subsample did not differ from staff who fullycompleted the questionnaire on other study vari-ables. However, the remaining issue is that the representativeness of the participating sample interms of demographic factors is not clear. A furthermethodological issue is that a measure of exposureto challenging behaviours was not taken in thepresent study. It may be that the effects observedinteract with this factor. For example, staff with lowperceived self-efficacy may be at considerably morerisk of negative emotional reactions when they areexposed to high levels of challenging behaviours.Exploration of such interactions in future researchis needed.

Bearing in mind the potential limitations of thepresent study and the need for further researchaddressing staff emotional reactions to challengingbehaviour, there are a number of implications ofthe present results for both research and practice.At the level of empirical research, objective (i.e. ameasure of knowledge) and subjective (i.e. per-ceived self-efficacy) measures of efficacy had differ-ent effects in the present study. This reinforces theneed to assess both constructs in any research studyon the psychological well being of staff who workwith people with ID.

The implications for practice are on three levels.First, more clinical understanding is needed of thepotential long-term effects of day-to-day negativeemotional reactions to challenging behaviours,especially given evidence of their link to staff psy-chological well-being (Mitchell & Hastings ).Secondly, the effects of perceived self-efficacy werepowerful in the present study. This suggests a fruit-ful avenue for intervention with staff in terms oftechniques that can bolster staff feelings of efficacy.

Thirdly, the remaining results suggest that certainstaff may have particular vulnerabilities. This mayinclude staff who hold strong behavioural causalbeliefs and staff with professional qualifications(perhaps because of their additional responsibili-ties). The measures used in the present researchmay have some value in the identification of vulnerable staff groups such as these.

References

Berryman J., Evans I. M. & Kalbag A. () The effectsof training in nonaversive behavior management on theattitudes and understanding of direct care staff. Journalof Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry ,–.

Bromley J. & Emerson E. () Beliefs and emotionalreactions of care staff working with people with chal-lenging behaviour. Journal of Intellectual DisabilityResearch , –.

Chavira V., López S. R., Blacher J. & Shapiro J. ()Latina mothers’ attributions, emotions, and reactions tothe problem behaviors of their children with develop-mental disabilities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , –.

Dagnan D., Trower P. & Smith R. () Care staffresponses to people with learning disabilities and chal-lenging behaviour: a cognitive-emotional analysis. BritishJournal of Clinical Psychology , –.

Furtkamp E., Giffort D. & Schiers W. () In-class eval-uation of behavior modification knowledge: parallel testsfor use in applied settings. Journal of Behaviour Therapyand Experimental Psychiatry , –.

Hall S. & Oliver C. () Differential effects of self-injurious behaviour on the behaviour of others.Behavioural Psychotherapy , –.

Hastings R. P. () Understanding factors that influencestaff responses to challenging behaviours: an exploratoryinterview study. Mental Handicap Research , –.

Hastings R. P. (a) Measuring staff perceptions ofchallenging behaviour: the Challenging Behaviour Attri-butions Scale (CHABA). Journal of Intellectual DisabilityResearch , –.

Hastings R. P. (b) Staff beliefs about the challengingbehaviors of children and adults with mental retarda-tion. Clinical Psychology Review , –.

Hastings R. P. & Remington B. () Rules of engage-ment: toward an analysis of staff responses to challeng-ing behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities ,–.

Hastings R. P. & Remington B. () The emotionaldimension of working with challenging behaviours.Clinical Psychology Forum , –.




Lazarus R. S. & Folkman S. () Stress, Appraisal andCoping. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Mitchell G. & Hastings R. P. () Learning disabilitycare staff emotional reactions to aggressive challengingbehaviours: development of a measurement tool. BritishJournal of Clinical Psychology , –.

Mitchell G. & Hastings R. P. () Coping, burnout, andemotion in staff working in community services forpeople with challenging behaviors. American Journal onMental Retardation , –.

Mossman D. A., Hastings R. P. & Brown T. (in press)Mediators’ emotional responses to self-injurious behav-ior: an experimental study. American Journal on MentalRetardation.

O’Dell S. L., Tarler-Benlolo L. & Flynn J. M. () Aninstrument to measure knowledge of behavioral princi-ples as applied to children. Journal of Behaviour Therapyand Experimental Psychiatry , –.

Oliver C. () Self-injurious behaviour in children withlearning disabilities: recent advances in assessment andintervention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, –.

Oliver C., Hall S., Hales J. & Head D. () Self-injurious behaviour and people with intellectual dis-abilities: assessing the behavioural knowledge and causal explanations of care staff. Journal of AppliedResearch in Intellectual Disabilities , –.

Taylor J. C. & Carr E. G. () Severe problem behav-iors related to social interaction : a systems analysis.Behavior Modification , –.

Weiner B. () A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-actionmodel of helping behaviour: an analysis of judgementsof help giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy , –.

Received December ; revised May

behavioural knowledge, causal beliefs and self-efficacy as predictors of special educators’...

Documents