Lore Saenen

Systematic Review of Restraint Interventions for Challenging Behaviour Among Persons with Intellectual Disabilities: Focus on Effectiveness in Single‐Case Experiments

BACKGROUND This article is the first in a two-part series: we focus on the effectiveness of restraint interventions (RIs) for reducing challenging behaviour (CB) among persons with intellectual disabilities in this first article. In the second article, we focus on experiences with RIs for CB among people with intellectual disabilities. METHODS A mixed-methods research synthesis involving statistical meta-analysis and qualitative meta-synthesis techniques was applied to synthesize 76 retrieved articles. This first article reports on the meta-analysis of 59 single-case experiments (SCEs) on effectiveness of RIs for CB among people with intellectual disabilities. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The RIs reported on in the SCEs were on average highly effective in reducing CB for people with intellectual disabilities, and this reduction in CB was statistically significant. However, the effects vary significantly over the included participants, and the published data and reported outcomes are rather unrepresentative of the everyday use of RIs among persons with intellectual disabilities.

Systematic review of restraint interventions for challenging behaviour among persons with intellectual disabilities: Focus on experiences

BACKGROUND This article is the second in a two-part series. Heyvaert et al. focused on the effectiveness of restraint interventions (RIs) for reducing challenging behaviour among persons with intellectual disabilities) in the first article. In this second article, Heyvaert et al. focus on experiences with RIs for challenging behaviour among people with intellectual disabilities. METHODS A mixed methods research synthesis involving statistical meta-analysis and qualitative meta-synthesis techniques was applied to synthesize 76 retrieved articles. This second article reports on the qualitative meta-synthesis of 17 articles on experiences with RIs for challenging behaviour among people with intellectual disabilities. RESULTS The 17 included articles report on important variables relating to the persons receiving RIs, to the persons giving RIs and to their interactions and relationship, as well as variables situated at the meso- and macro-level. CONCLUSIONS The developed model can assist in reflecting on and improving of current RI practices among people with intellectual disabilities.

A randomised Monty Hall experiment: The positive effect of conditional frequency feedback

The Monty Hall dilemma (MHD) is a notorious probability problem with a counterintuitive solution. There is a strong tendency to stay with the initial choice, despite the fact that switching doubles the probability of winning. The current randomised experiment investigates whether feedback in a series of trials improves behavioural performance on the MHD and increases the level of understanding of the problem. Feedback was either conditional or non-conditional, and was given either in frequency format or in percentage format. Results show that people learn to switch most when receiving conditional feedback in frequency format. However, problem understanding does not improve as a consequence of receiving feedback. Our study confirms the dissociation between behavioural performance on the MHD, on one hand, and actual understanding of the MHD, on the other. We discuss how this dissociation can be understood.

Why Humans Fail in Solving the Monty Hall Dilemma: A Systematic Review

The Monty Hall dilemma (MHD) is a difficult brain teaser. We present a systematic review of literature published between January 2000 and February 2018 addressing why humans systematically fail to react optimally to the MHD or fail to understand it. Based on a sequential analysis of the phases in the MHD, we first review causes in each of these phases that may prohibit humans to react optimally and to fully understand the problem. Next, we address the question whether humans’ performance, in terms of choice behaviour and (probability) understanding, can be improved. Finally, we discuss individual differences related to people’s suboptimal performance. This review provides novel insights by means of its holistic approach of the MHD: At each phase, there are reasons to expect that people respond suboptimally. Given that the occurrence of only one cause is sufficient, it is not surprising that suboptimal responses are so widespread and people rarely understand the MHD.

How do high school students solve probability problems? A mixed methods study on probabilistic reasoning

ABSTRACT When studying a complex research phenomenon, a mixed methods design allows to answer a broader set of research questions and to tap into different aspects of this phenomenon, compared to a monomethod design. This paper reports on how a sequential equal status design (QUAN → QUAL) was used to examine students’ reasoning processes when solving probability problems. A select clustered sampling resulted in the inclusion of 168 high school students in a first, quantitative phase, in which a questionnaire was used to assess how they solved probability problems. This questionnaire included probability items that were based on the outcome orientation, the representativeness misconception, and the equiprobability bias. In a second, qualitative phase, 18 students who were purposefully sampled from the first research phase were interviewed in order to conduct an in-depth study of their probabilistic reasoning processes. In this paper, we illustrate and discuss how several mixed methods research purposes were realized throughout our study: development, expansion, and initiation.