Page 80 - Reduction of coercive measures

Chapter 4
appropriate interventions or to expected success resulting from performing an intervention (Bailey, Hare, Hatton, & Limb, 2006). In either form, following Bandura (1993), low self-efficacy reflects a history of failed attempts, poor modelling or negative vicarious experiences, and negative affective responses to dealing with CB through intervening. Low staff self-efficacy is therefore a likely predictor of unsuccessful interventions (Cudré-Mauroux, 2011; Hastings & Brown, 2002), leading to more reliance on coercive measures. Thus far little evidence exists on the possible linkage between staff self-efficacy and the incidence of coercive measures.
To further integrate disparate findings, this study sought to test the hypothesis that resident challenging behavior, social and communicative adaptive functioning, attachment behavior, staff attributions, and staff self-efficacy were uniquely associated with residents’ exposure to coercive measures in a large residential care organization. A secondary goal was to explore the extent to which associated factors varied according to the type of measures that were considered, hypothesizing that resident and staff characteristics may be especially associated with coercive measures that serve a protective function rather than organizational functions. Coercive measures that serve a protective function can be divided in two subsets: a subset of measures applied to protect from direct and mostly unforeseen danger and a subset of measures preventing from indirect, not acute danger or disadvantage. The resident characteristics CB, communication and attachment behavior were hypothesized to be associated with both subsets. Staff characteristics focus on challenging behavior that directly leads to danger and therefore, and therefore were hypothesized only to relate to the first subset of coercive measures.
78