Who's challenging who training for staff empathy towards adults with challenging behaviour: cluster randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One in five adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) known to services display challenging behaviours (CBs), and these individuals are at risk for restrictive practices and poor care. Staff attitudes may contribute to the development and/or maintenance of CBs. We investigated the effectiveness of co-produced Who's Challenging Who? training delivered by people with ID to staff. METHOD: This study involved a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of Who's Challenging Who? training with follow-up at six and 20 weeks post-randomisation. PARTICIPANTS: two staff from each of 118 residential care settings for adults with ID at least one of whom displayed aggressive CB. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Self-reported Staff Empathy for people with Challenging Behaviour Questionnaire. ANALYSIS: intention to treat of all randomised settings. ISCRTN registration: ISRCTN53763600. RESULTS: 118 residential settings (including 236 staff) were randomised to either receive training (59 settings) or to receive training after a delay (59 settings). The primary analysis included data from 121 staff in 76 settings (51% of staff, 64% of settings). The adjusted mean difference on the transformed (cubed) Staff Empathy for people with Challenging Behaviour Questionnaire score at the primary end point was 1073.2 (95% CI: -938.1 to 3084.5, P = 0.296) in favour of the intervention group (effect size Cohen's d = .19). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large-scale RCT of a co-produced training course delivered by people with ID. Findings indicated a small positive (but statistically non-significant) effect on increased staff empathy at 20 weeks, and small to moderate effects for staff reported secondary outcomes in favour of the intervention group.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".