Page 84 - Reduction of coercive measures
P. 84

                                Chapter 4
had to indicate which behaviors they had observed during the last two months. For each item one could indicate how frequently the specific behavior occurred (1 = monthly, 2 = weekly, 3 = daily and 4 = hourly), and how severe the behavior was (1 = slight, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe). The clinical criterion validity of the BPI-01 was good according to Rojahn et al. (2001). Lambrechts et al (2009) studied the psychometric properties of the Dutch translation for people with a profound ID and found a good to excellent internal consistency. Also, the test-retest reliability of the frequency scale was good to excellent. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was computed between all frequency and severity scales and subscales. Correlations ≥.50 suggested that scales overlapped. In the current study this was found between all frequency and severity subscales, consistent with findings of Rojahn et al. (2001). Following their recommendation, the frequency scales were excluded. Pearson correlations were .43 between SIB and AB, .45 between AB and SB, and .53 between SIB and SB. Therefore these scales were averaged into a ‘Challenging behavior’ scale showing marginal internal consistency as Cronbach’s alpha was .59.
Attachment behavior
Residents attachment behavior towards support staff members was assessed by the Secure Base Safe Haven Observation List (SBSH-OL; De Schipper & Schuengel, 2006). The SBSH-OL was developed to assess relation specific attachment behavior of young people with ID and contains 20 items using a 7 points Likert-scale. Every item describes attachment behavior in a specific situation. Support staff had to indicate to what extent the behavior is applicable towards other support staff members and themselves. Before filling in the questionnaire, support staff members were asked to observe residents’ behavior for at least one day. Examples of items are: ‘When this person is ill of hurt, he/she stays closer to me than on other days’ or ‘when this persons finishes with an activity or toy, he/she returns to me for play, for a hug, for a touch, or for help finding something else to do’. A high score reflects frequent attachment behavior. Only the scale assessing attachment behavior towards the caregiver filling out the list was used. Cronbach’s alpha was .92 indicating good internal consistency.

   82   83   84   85   86