Publication avec DOI
Récupéré
Publication
crossref
Kristen Bottema‐Beutel, Ruoxi Guo, Jessica Hinson‐Wiliams, Yueyang Shen, Shannon LaPoint, Tiffany Woynaroski, Micheal Sandbank
(2025).
Research Review: Conceptualizing and measuring ‘problem behavior’ in early intervention autism research – a project AIM secondary systematic review.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 66(11), 1765-1780.
Wiley.
- Date de publication
-
juin 2025
- Identifiant
-
10.1111/jcpp.14177
- Auteurs
-
Kristen Bottema‐Beutel,
Ruoxi Guo,
Jessica Hinson‐Wiliams,
Yueyang Shen,
Shannon LaPoint,
Tiffany Woynaroski,
Micheal Sandbank
- Source
- Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
- Détails
- 66(11), 1765-1780
- Type de référence
- article
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Source de métadonnées
- crossref
Résumé
Background Some autistic children exhibit behavior that caregivers, clinicians, and researchers consider problematic. However, there is little consensus about the types of behaviors that should be treated as a problem and reduced via intervention. In autism intervention research, problem behaviors range from inherently harmful behaviors such as aggression and self‐injury to nonnormative but not harmful behaviors associated with autism such as repetitive movements. Likewise, there are a variety of conceptualizations and measurement practices used to assess these behaviors. Methods In this secondary systematic review of group‐design, nonpharmacological intervention studies for autistic children up to age eight, we explore researchers' conceptualizations of problem behavior and measurement systems to assess problem behavior. We defined problem behavior as any outcome where behaviors were targeted for reduction or elimination. A coding scheme was applied to 102 studies that met inclusion criteria for the secondary review. All studies were double coded by two independent coders. Results Sixty‐two percent of studies described reducing behavior as a primary or secondary purpose of the study and/or intervention, 33% gave a rationale for targeting behaviors for reduction, and 28% offered a conceptualization of the behavior(s) they targeted. Only 8% offered a conceptual definition. The most common measures were ‘off‐the‐shelf’ measures that had undergone at least some previous validation beyond interrater reliability and that involved parent reports. For the 10 most common assessment measures, two were validated along six different validation dimensions in autistic populations. All but one full scale or subscale measured behaviors that were nonnormative but not inherently harmful, or a mix of behaviors that were inherently harmful and that were nonnormative but not inherently harmful. Conclusions Intervention researchers should provide clear definitions and rationales for targeting behaviors for reduction via intervention and should develop refined measurement tools for assessing these behaviors in collaboration with the autistic community.
Auteur·ices de l’étude dans cette référence citée