A Decision-Making Model for Selecting the Optimal Treatment Procedure

  • Saul Axelrod
  • Scott Spreat
  • Brian Berry
  • Lynn Moyer
Part of the Applied Clinical Psychology book series (NSSB)


In delineating the rights due to all persons receiving treatment, Van Houten et al. (1988) indicated that each individual has a right to the least restrictive effective procedures that are available. In further delineating this right, the authors specified that a practitioner should not employ restrictive procedures unless it could be shown that such tactics were necessary to produce safe and meaningful behavior change. On the other hand, the report stated that it was unacceptable to expose people to nonrestrictive procedures that were unlikely to work. Thus, it becomes a delicate balancing act to choose a procedure that is as nonrestrictive as possible, yet is effective enough to solve a person’s problem.


Developmental Disability Behavior Analysis Target Behavior Applied Behavior Analysis Professional Judgment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AuClaire Behavior Management Guidelines. (1988). Bear, Delaware: AuClair, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Axelrod, S. (1983). Behavior modification for the classroom teacher (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod, S. (1987a). Doing it without arrows: A review of LaVigna and Donnellan’s alternatives to punishment: Solving behavior problems with non-aversive strategies. Behavior Analyst, 10, 243–251.Google Scholar
  4. Axelrod, S. (1987b). Functional and structural analyses of behavior: Approaches leading to reduced use of punishment procedures? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 165–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balsam, P. D., & Bondy, A. S. (1982). Behavioral Programming and Management Manual. Tallahassee, FL: Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.Google Scholar
  6. Balsam, P. D, & Bondy, A. S. (1983). The negative side effects of reward. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 283–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brakman, C. (1985). A human rights committee in a public school for severely and profoundly retarded students. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 20, 139–147.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, L. J., Shiagra, B., York, J., Zanella, & Rogen, P. (1984). The discrepancy analysis technique in programs for students with severe handicaps. Madison: University of Wisconsin and Madison Metropolitan School District.Google Scholar
  9. Champlin, G. (1989). On the aversive techniques/punishment controversy. Psychology in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 14, 5–6.Google Scholar
  10. Durand, V M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans, J., & Meyer, L. (1985). An educative approach to behavior problems. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  12. Favell, J. E. (1990). Issues in the use of non-aversive and aversive interventions. In S. L. Harris & J. S. Handleman (Eds.), Aversive and nonaversive intervention: Controlling life-threatening behavior by the developmentally disabled (pp. 36–56). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1987). Severe maladaptive behaviors. In M. E. Snell (Ed.), Systematic instruction of people with severe handicaps (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  14. Griffith, R. G. (1980). An administrative perspective on guidelines for behavior modification: The creation of a legally safe environment. Behavior Therapist, 1, 5–7.Google Scholar
  15. Griffith, R. G., & Henning, D. B. (1981). What is a human rights committee? Mental Retardation, 19, 61–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Groden, G. (1989). A guide for conducting a comprehensive behavioral analysis of a target behavior. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 20, 163–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. L., Bauman, K. G., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. LaVigna, G. W, & Donnellan, A. M. (1986). Alternative to punishment: Solving behavior problems with non-aversive strategies. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  19. Lennox, D. B., Miltenberger, R. G., Spengler, P., & Efranian, N. (1988). Decelerative treatment practices with persons who have mental retardation: A review of five years of the literature. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 92, 492–501.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lovaas, O. I., & Favell, J. E. (1987). Protection for clients undergoing aversive/restrictive interventions. Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 311–325.Google Scholar
  21. Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1970). Analyzing performance problems: or “You really oughta wanna.” Belmont, CA: Fearon.Google Scholar
  22. Matson, J. L., & Taras, M. E. (1989). A 20 year review of punishment procedures and alternative methods to treat problem behaviors in the developmentally disabled. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10.Google Scholar
  23. May, J. G., Risley, T. R., Twardosz, S., Friedman, P., Bijou, S. W., Wexler, D., et al. (1975). Guidelines for the use of behavioral procedures in state programs for retarded persons. Mental Retardation Research, 1, 1–73.Google Scholar
  24. Mulick, J. (1989). Restrictive behavioral interventions and their alternatives. Presented at symposium, “Ensuring Quality of Life From Infancy Through Adulthood/” Young Adult Institute, New York City.Google Scholar
  25. Reese, M. (1982). Helping human rights committees and clients balance intrusiveness and effectiveness: A challenge for research and therapy. Behavior Therapist, 5, 95–99.Google Scholar
  26. Robinson, C. C., & Robinson, J. H. (1983). Sensory-motor functions and cognitive development. In M. E. Snell (Ed.), Systematic instruction of the moderately and severely handicapped (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  27. Roos, P. (1974). Human rights and behavior modification. Mental Retardation, 12, 3–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Singer, G. S., & Irvin, L. K. (1987). Human rights review of intrusive behavioral treatments for students with severe handicaps. Exceptional Children, 54, 46–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Spreat, S. (1982). Weighing treatment alternatives: Which is less restrictive? Woodhaven Center E & R Technical Report 82-11-(1). Philadelphia: Temple University.Google Scholar
  31. Spreat, S., Baker-Potts, J. (1983). Patterns of injury in institutionalized residents. Mental Retardation, 21, 23–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Spreat, S., & Lanzi, F. L. (1989). The role of human rights committees in the review of restrictive/aversive behavior modification procedures: Results of a national survey. Mental Retardation, 27, 375–382.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Spreat, S., & Lipinski, D. P. (1986). Survey of state policies regarding the use of restrictive/aversive behavior modification procedures. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 1, 57–71.Google Scholar
  34. Spreat, S., Lipinski, D., Dickerson, R., Nass, R., & Dorsey, M. (1989a). A paramorphic representation of the acceptability of behavioral programming. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 4, 1–13.Google Scholar
  35. Spreat, S., Lipinski, D., Dickerson, R., Nass, R., & Dorsey, M. (1989b). The acceptability of electric shock programs. Behavior Modification, 13, 245–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. State of New Jersey. (1988). Behavior modification programming for the treatment of maladaptive behavior. Division Circular No. 34. Trenton: New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Developmental Disabilities.Google Scholar
  37. Steege, M., Wacker, D., Berg, W., Cigrand, K., & Cooper, L. (1989). The use of behavioral assessment to prescribe and evaluate treatments for severely handicapped children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 23–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. United States of America. (1983). Code of Federal Regulations (Title 45, Part 46, March 8, 1983). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  39. Van Houten, R., Axelrod, S., Bailey, J. S., Favell, J. E., Foxx, R. M., Iwata, R. A., & Lovaas, O. I. (1988). The right to effective behavioral treatment. Behavior Analyst, 11, 111–114. Youngberg v. Romeo, 102 S. Ct. (1982).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saul Axelrod
    • 1
  • Scott Spreat
    • 2
  • Brian Berry
    • 1
  • Lynn Moyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Special Education ProgramTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.The Woods SchoolLanghorneUSA

Personalised recommendations