The outcome of a statewide audit of the quality of positive behaviour support plans

ABSTRACT

Background Quality behaviour support plans (BSPs) are critical for achieving positive outcomes for people with intellectual disability who exhibit challenging behaviour. This study measured the quality of BSPs for technical accuracy and appropriate readability.

Method Ten disability support organisations provided 139 BSPs for evaluation using the Behavior Support Plan Quality Evaluation (BSP-QE II; to assess technical accuracy) and Flesch readability scores (to assess readability).

Results The mean BSP-QE II score (M = 6.53) classified the BSPs analysed as “weak.” Of interest, the elements of the BSPs that were subject to specific statutory regulation displayed greater quality. The readability scores indicated that plans were written using language that may not be understandable to typical direct support staff.

Conclusions Poor quality BSPs, or those too complex to be readily understood, may not be implemented fully. Statutory regulation positively influences BSP quality; however, a more detailed focus on training and quality assurance is indicated.

KEYWORDS:

• positive behaviour support
• behaviour support plans
• intellectual disability
• challenging behaviour

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the passing of the Honourable Justice William Carter. In his seminal review Challenging Behaviour and Disability: A Targeted Response, the Honourable Justice Carter made an overwhelming contribution to the lives of people with intellectual disability subject to restrictive practices in Queensland.

The authors would also like to acknowledge the organisations that participated in this research. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the team of research assistants involved in the data collection phase of this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Staff member within the organisation working in collaboration with an allied health professional was removed from these analyses due to the low sample size (n = 3).

Additional information

Funding

Internal funding from the Centre of Excellence for Behaviour Support, The University of Queensland, was used to conduct this research.