These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The social validity of an argument supporting a ban on aversive procedures.
    Author: Goza AB, Ricketts RW, Perkins TS.
    Journal: J Intellect Disabil Res; 1993 Oct; 37 ( Pt 5)():449-58. PubMed ID: 8268711.
    Abstract:
    There is currently a controversy regarding the use of non-aversive and aversive procedures in the treatment of severe behaviour problems in individuals with mental retardation. One specific criticism directed at professionals who support the non-aversive position is that they have taken quotations from scientific articles out of context in order to give the impression of empirical support for their position. The present authors addressed this issue by assessing the social validity of references made to selected scientific articles in support of a specific argument in a monograph by Guess et al. (1987). Three groups of individuals were surveyed in this study: (1) psychologists working with individuals with mental retardation at six state schools in Texas (Group I); (2) selected professionals with expertise in the area of self-injurious behaviour and in the use of behaviour modification techniques with individuals who are mentally retarded (Group II); and (3) the authors of the six journal articles that were selected for the present study (Group III). The study focused on references made to journal articles in support of the 'depersonalization hypothesis' that aversive therapies serve to depersonalize the recipients of these treatments. Results indicate that the authors of the monograph were not completely accurate in their references to the six articles. Sixty per cent of the respondents from Group I, 71% of respondents from Group II, and two out of the three respondents from Group III rated the citations made in the monograph as inaccurate. In addition, the respondents rated the articles as not supportive of the depersonalization hypothesis for which they were cited. Over half of Group I respondents, and all respondents from Groups II and III rated the articles as non-supportive of the depersonalization hypothesis. These findings suggest that the authors of the monograph have used references selectively and incorrectly in support of their views in at least some instances. This emphasizes the importance of critical reading and hypotheses based on bodies of knowledge rather than selected sources. Furthermore, this study indicates the need for operationally defined hypotheses which may be examined empirically.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]