Effects of Protective Equipment on Frequency and Intensity of Aggression-Provoked Staff Injury

  • Kelly D. Urban
  • James K. Luiselli
  • Stephanie N. Child
  • Rebecca Parenteau
Original Article


We evaluated the effects of protective equipment on arm and scalp injuries caused by aggressive behavior in a child with autism. During intervention phases in a multiple baseline design, teachers wore arm guards and baseball caps. Wearing the protective equipment reduced the frequency and intensity of arm and scalp injuries. Overall daily frequency of aggression also decreased across baseline and intervention phases. The clinical implications of wearing protective equipment for injury prevention and reduction are discussed.


Autism Aggressive behavior Injury prevention Protective equipment 



The authors acknowledge Britany Wojtysiak, Amy Breen, Nicole Morin, and Kim Kuchar for their contributions to the study.


  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th edition, text revision). Washington: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hill, J., & Spreat, S. (1987). Staff injury rates associated with the implementation of physical restraint. Mental Retardation, 25, 141–145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Kissel, R. C., Nau, P. A., & Farber, J. M. (1990). The Self-Injury Trauma (SIT) scale: a method for quantifying surface tissue damage caused by self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 99–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Luiselli, J. K. (2009). Aggression and noncompliance. In J. L. Matson (Ed.), Applied behavior analysis for children with autism spectrum disorders (pp. 175–187). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Luiselli, J. K. (2011). Staff injury prevention and reduction: Behavioral systems analysis and intervention in a human services setting for youth with intellectual disability. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  6. McClintock, K., Hall, S., & Oliver, C. (2003). Risk markers associated with challenging behaviors in people with intellectual disabilities: a meta-analytic study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47, 405–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Moore, J. W., Fisher, W. W., & Pennington, A. (2004). Systematic application and removal of protective equipment in the assessment of multiple topographies of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 73–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lowe, K., Allen, D., Jones, E., Brophy, S., & James, W. (2007). Challenging behaviors: prevalence and topographies. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51, 625–636.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Singh, N. N., Lancioni, G. E., Winton, A. S. W., Singh, A. N., Adkins, A. D., & Singh, J. (2009). Mindful staff can reduce the use of physical restraints when providing care to individuals with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 194–202.Google Scholar
  10. Williams, D. E. (2009). Restraint safety: an analysis of injuries related to restraint of people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 135–139.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.May InstituteRandolphUSA

Personalised recommendations