Contextual variables affecting aggressive behaviour in individuals with mild to borderline intellectual disabilities who live in a residential facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aggression is a common type of problem behaviour in clients with mild to borderline intellectual disability who live in a residential facility. We explored contextual events that elicit aggressive behaviour and variables that were associated with such events. METHOD: Respondents were 87 direct-care staff members of 87 clients with aggressive behaviour who lived in a residential facility. Staff members completed the Contextual Assessment Inventory (CAI) and a questionnaire on demographic information and types, frequency and severity of aggressive behaviour. Internal consistency of the total CAI was excellent (alpha = 0.95), and Cronbach alpha's for the CAI sub-scales ranged from 0.75 to 0.93. Inter-rater agreement for the CAI could be considered good (mean intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.63). RESULTS: Both social and task-related events were reported to evoke aggressive behaviour of clients most often. Negative interactions, task characteristics and daily routines relatively often evoked aggressive behaviour while an uncomfortable environment, medication, illness and physiological states (i.e. physical and biological events) evoked aggressive behaviour least often. Mean CAI sub-scale scores were significantly related to gender, IQ and frequency of aggressive behaviour. CONCLUSION: The present study extends our knowledge regarding events that are associated with an increased probability of aggressive behaviour. Knowledge of these contextual variables may be helpful in designing programmes (e.g. applied behaviour analysis, social skills training and cognitive behavioural therapies) for the management and prevention of aggressive behaviour in clients with mild to borderline intellectual disability who live in a residential facility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".