Contingent Electric Shock as a Treatment for Challenging Behavior for People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Support for the <scp>IASSIDD</scp> Policy Statement Opposing Its Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Issues The International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IASSIDD) is an international group of researchers, clinicians, students, parents, and self‐advocates that promotes worldwide research and exchange of information on intellectual and developmental disabilities. IASSIDD recently developed a policy statement regarding their opposition to the use of contingent electric skin shock (CESS) with individuals with challenging behavior and intellectual and developmental disabilities. To support the policy, the available literature was reviewed to evaluate the efficacy, side effects, generalization, and long‐term effectiveness of the procedure as an intervention for challenging behavior. Findings The review provides a history that demonstrates that, although CESS can decrease the frequency of challenging behavior, it comes at a cost in terms of physical and emotional side effects, and questions remain regarding the long‐term effectiveness of the procedure. In addition, we raise several ethical and methodological issues that make the research on the use of CESS even more concerning. Conclusions Although research continues in some countries, these studies are now rare. In fact, in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration has just banned the use of such devices with individuals with self‐injury and aggression. It is hoped that, because there are many other forms of treatment that have shown to be effective for severe challenging behavior, we can completely avoid the use of CESS.
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 | 0.020 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".