Abstract
Abstract
Background
Social validity in the field of applied behaviour analysis is the measurement of the social significance of goals, the social appropriateness of procedures, and the social importance of the effects of a treatment. There is a paucity of rigorous research on social validity measurement as it relates to feeding treatment.
Objective
To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review aiming to identify the gaps in and assess the current state of the science regarding comprehensive social validity measurement of paediatric feeding treatment.
Method
We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines using four ProQuest databases.
Results
The systematic review resulted in the identification of 26 eligible articles reporting findings related to social validity post-intensive treatment or describing new measurement systems that could be used to assess social validity more comprehensively. Collectively, caregivers rated behaviour-analytic treatments high in social validity and treatments were highly effective. Caregivers reported increased broader quality of life and lasting positive impacts, decreased stress, and lack of negative effects.
Conclusion
In the context of these results, we discuss behaviour-analytic feeding treatment within social validity’s comprehensive definition. We identify additional data-based research needs in this area and provide recommendations to spur new investigations. Social validity measurement requires refinement to further inform the standard of care. Paediatric feeding expertise and competency are crucial in navigating social validity considerations. Accurate dissemination is needed to increase earlier access to effective feeding treatment for families and specialised training for professionals to promote data-based and individualised decision-making in this vital area.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference107 articles.
1. Abidin, R. (1995). The parenting stress index—short form. Psychological Assessment Resources.
2. Ahearn, W. H., Kerwin, M. E., Eicher, P. S., & Lukens, C. T. (2001). An ABAC comparison of two intensive interventions for food refusal. Behavior Modification, 25(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445501253002
3. Ahearn, W. H., Kerwin, M. E., Eicher, P. S., Shantz, J., & Swearingin, W. (1996). An alternating treatments comparison of two intensive interventions for food refusal. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(3), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-321
4. Albin, R. W., Lucyshyn, J. M., Horner, R. H., & Flannery, K. B. (1996). Contextual fit for behavioral support plans: A model for “goodness of fit.” In L. K. Koegel, R. L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.), Positive behavior support plans: Including people with difficult behavior in the community (pp. 81–98). Brookes.
5. Aldridge, V. K., Dovey, T. M., Martin, C. I., & Meyer, C. (2010). Identifying clinically relevant feeding problems and disorders. Journal of Child Health Care, 14(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367493510370456
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献