Cited by 112Behavioral and Psychological StudiesAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchDown syndrome and intellectual disability research

Updating a meta-analysis of intervention research with challenging behaviour: treatment validity and standards of practice

Harvey, Shane T., Boer, Diana, Meyer, Luanna H., Evans, Ian M.·2009·Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis of interventions with challenging behaviour in children with disabilities updates a comprehensive meta-analysis that previously addressed reported standards of practice and effectiveness of different strategies. METHOD: Four effect-size algorithms were calculated for published intervention cases, and results analysed and compared to previous findings by behaviour target, intervention type, and other factors. RESULTS: The evidence largely supports intervention effectiveness, with some inconsistency reflecting the fact that the four metrics assess different aspects of change. Skills replacement, consequence combined with systems change, and antecedent interventions generated selective positive results, large enough to be clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural interventions effectively reduce challenging behaviour, particularly when preceded by a functional analysis. Teaching replacement skills was most effective, especially if used in combination with systems change and/or traditional antecedent and consequence manipulation. Positive changes as well as enduring limitations to both research design and standards of clinical practice in comparison to 18 years ago are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13668250802690922

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harvey, S. T., Boer, D., Meyer, L. H., & Evans, I. M.
Affiliations
  • Massey University (NZ)
  • Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
Corresponding author
Evans, Ian M.
Venue
Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability
Published
2009-03
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
67-80
ISSN
  • 0045-0634 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-8250
  • 1469-9532
OpenAlex
W2075870960
Cited by
112
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 10
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
Keywords
behavioral problems, children with disabilities, behavioral interventions, treatment validity, standards of practice, functional analysis, antecedent interventions, systemic change, intervention effectiveness
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Intellectual Disability, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Psychomotor Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review