- There is research support to suggest the use of an evaluation tool ( BIP-QE-II) can measure the quality of behaviour support plans (BSPs) developed for children with behaviours of concern (Cook, Mayer, Browning-Wright, Kramer, Wallace & Dart, 2012) and adults with behaviours of concern (McVilly, Webber, Sharp & Paris, 2013) with a high degree of validity and reliability.
- There is also evidence to support the view that high quality BSPs reduce the use of restraint and seclusion by disability support providers and conversely poor quality BSPs increase their use (Webber, Richardson, Lambrick and Fester, 2012).
What are the features of a high quality BSP?
- The criteria listed below have been developed through a literature review examining behaviour analysis and outlines the key components for developing a high quality BSP (Browning-Wright, Cook, Crews, Gale, Rawlings Kraemer & Mayer, 2007).
A. Behaviour of concern is stated in a way that is observable and measurable;
B. Predictors/triggers of behaviour are described in detail;
C. Analysis (explanation) of what supports the problem behaviour is logically related to the identified predictors/triggers;
D. Environmental changes (strategies) are logically related to what supports the problem behaviour;
E. Function of behaviour is explained in terms of what the person needs or gets; rejects or escapes; protests or avoids;
F. Replacement behaviour (a positive alternative to the behaviour of concern which serves the same function);
G. Teaching strategies for replacement behaviours are outlined in detail; i.e. how replacement behaviours will be taught;
H. Reinforcers are described to encourage the use of replacement behaviours and reward the non-use of behaviours of concern;
I. Reactive strategies for managing behaviours of concern are described; i.e. increase in use of replacement behaviour (positive alternatives to behaviours of concern);
J. Goals and objectives for behaviour are described; i.e. increase in the use of replacement behaviours (positive alternatives to behaviours of concern);
K. Team coordination is described in terms of what roles people perform, who is responsible for particular tasks and by when;
L. Communication about what information is to be recorded and how it is to be circulated;
M. Background to the person including their personal history, strengths, preferences, support needs, history of the behaviour, past treatments and diagnoses;
N. Contemporary philosophy of service provision to people with disabilities is reflected in the plan in terms of language used; issues addressed and lay out adopted.
- These criteria form the basis of the Behaviour Intervention Plan Quality Evaluation tool (BIP-QEII) that the Senior Practitioner uses to assess the quality of support plans.
How do I contact the Senior Practitioner?
For further information about the BSP-QEII please use the following contact details:
Telephone: (03) 6166 3567
Mobile: 0428 197 474
- Further information about Restrictive Interventions can be found on the RISET Tas link below.
Access practice resources and restrictive intervention information via RISET-TAS online: RISET-Tas Link
- Browning-wright D., Mayer, G. & Saren, D. (2006). Behaviour support plan quality evaluation scoring guide II. Retrieved online at www.pent.ca.gov. November 2012.
- Cook , C., Mayer, G., Browning-Wright, D., Kraemer, B., Wallace, M. & Dart, E. (2012). Exploring the link among behavioural intervention plans, treatment integrity and student outcomes under natural conditions. The Journal of Special Education, 46, 3-16.
- McVilly, K., Webber, L., Sharp, G., & Paris. (2013). The content validity of the Behavioural Support Plan Quality Evaluation tool (BSP-QEII) and its potential application in accommodation and day support services for adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 57 (8), pp. 703-715
- Webber, L. S., Richardson, B., Lambrick, F. and Fester, T. (2012). The impact of the quality of behaviour support plans on the use of restraint and seclusion in disability services. International Journal of Positive Behavioural Support, 2 (2), pp. 3-11.
Please note: The information contained in this document is provided as an initial guide only. It is not intended to be and is not a substitute for legal advice. Service providers should seek their own independent legal advice with reference to the implementation of the legislation.