Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27622127›Full record

ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2016

Familiarizing New Staff for Working with Adults with Severe Disabilities: a Case for Relationship Building.

Marsha B Parsons, Erik Bentley, Todd Solari, Dennis H Reid

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. They have a Voice; are we Listening?Behavior analysis in practice · 2023
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marsha B ParsonsJ. Iverson Riddle Center, Morganton, NC USA.
Erik BentleyJ. Iverson Riddle Center, Morganton, NC USA.
Todd SolariJ. Iverson Riddle Center, Morganton, NC USA.
Dennis H ReidCarolina Behavior Analysis and Support Center, Center, P. O. Box 425, Morganton, NC 28680 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In human service agencies, situations exist at various times in which consumers are not familiar with the staff who work with them. We evaluated effects of familiar versus unfamiliar staff working with two men with severe disabilities in a vocational program. Results indicated both participants displayed more compliance with familiar staff relative to unfamiliar staff and one exhibited more on-task (one was near ceiling levels with both staff). Subsequently, a familiarization process was conducted with four new staff before working with four men with severe disabilities that involved spending time with a participant in a preferred activity and phasing in to the participant's routine. Each staff worked with one participant after being familiarized and concurrently with another without being familiarized. In all but one case, participant compliance was greater with the familiarized staff. Except when on-task was near ceiling levels, it also was higher with the familiarized staff. Additionally, results offered some support for the existence of a good relationship between familiarized staff and participants in terms of more participant happiness indices than with unfamiliar staff and, to a smaller degree, less unhappiness indices and problem behavior. Implications for practitioners are discussed, including being aware of potential problems when unfamiliar staff work with adults with severe disabilities and considering familiarizing new staff prior to working with individuals. Discussion also addresses how more attention could be directed to relationship development from a practitioner and research perspective.

Indexed as

Adults with severe disabilitiesRelationship buildingUnfamiliar staff

Identifiers

PMID27622127
PMCPMC4999366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.