Evaluate quantitative research questions and hypotheses in research studies published in peer-reviewed journals
Identify quantitative designs in research studies published in peer-reviewed journals
Explain use of quantitative designs in research studies published in peer-reviewed journals
Analyze alignment among theory, problem, purpose, research questions and hypotheses, and design in quantitative research studies published in peer-reviewed journals
Apply APA Style to writing

For this Discussion, you will evaluate quantitative research questions and hypotheses in assigned journal articles in your discipline and consider the alignment of theory, problem, purpose, research questions and hypotheses, and design. You will also identify the type of quantitative research design the authors used and explain how it was implemented. Quasi-experimental, casual comparative, correlational, pretest–posttest, or true experimental are examples of types of research designs used in quantitative research. 
 

Evaluate the research questions and hypotheses.

The Research Questions and Hypotheses Checklist serves as a guide for your evaluation. Please do not respond to the checklist in a Yes/No format in writing your Discussion post.

Identify the type of quantitative research design used and explain how the researchers implemented the design.
Analyze alignment among the theory, problem, purpose, research questions and hypotheses, and design.

Be sure to support your Main Issue Post and Response Post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA Style.
 
Babbie, E. (2017). Basics of social research (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Chapter 5, “Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Measurement”

 Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H.  (Eds.). (2020). Research designs and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chapter 4, “Quantitative Research Designs”

The article to be used is attached:
Davies, B., Griffiths, J., Liddiard, K., Lowe, K., & Stead, L. (2015). Changes in staff confidence and attributions for challenging behaviour after training in positive behavioural support within a forensic medium secure service. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 26(6), 847–861. doi: 10.1080/14789949.2015.1072574

Changes in staff confidence and attributions for challenging
behaviour after training in positive behavioural support
within a forensic medium secure service

Bronwen Daviesa*, John Griffithsa, Kim Liddiarda, Kathy Loweb and
Lauren Steada

aCaswell Clinic, Glanrhyd Hospital, Bridgend, UK; bLearning Disability Services,
Glanrhyd Hospital, Bridgend, UK

(Received 9 October 2014; accepted 2 July 2015)

Positive behavioural support (PBS) is a non-aversive approach to preventing
and managing challenging behaviours. Seventy-nine qualified and unquali-
fied nursing, psychology and occupational therapy staff were trained in using
PBS. To measure the effectiveness of the training, confidence in managing
challenging behaviour and attributions for causality, control and stability
were measured before and after the training. To measure confidence, an
adapted version of the Confidence in Coping with Patient Aggression
Instrument was used. Attributions were measured using the Challenging
Behaviour Attributions Scale and the Causal Dimension Scale II. There was
a significant increase in confidence after training. In addition, there were
significant changes in attributions relating to causality and stability of
challenging behaviour, particularly for qualified staff. The results suggest
that confidence and attributions are affected positively by training in PBS
within a medium secure forensic mental health setting.

Keywords: training; positive behavioural support; attributions; confidence;
violence and aggression; antisocial behaviour

Introduction

Challenging behaviour within the NHS remains a well-recognised issue that
brings into question factors such as causation, risk, intervention and associated
outcomes (NHS, 2014). Managing challenging behaviour has been a
demanding aspect of care provision within forensic services. Behaviour can be
described as challenging when it is:

Of such an intensity, frequency or duration as to threaten the quality of life and
or the physical safety of the individual or others and is likely to lead to responses
that are restrictive, aversive or result in exclusion. (Royal College of
Psychiatrists, 2007, p. 10)

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 2015

Vol. 26, No. 6, 847–861, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2015.1072574

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2015.1072574

Positive behavioural support (PBS) is a framework of assessment and positive
interventions aimed at preventing and managing challenging behaviours
(Department of Health, 2014). The research exploring the effectiveness of PBS
in managing behaviours that challenge has largely occurred within learning
disability populations in the United Kingdom and child and adolescent
populations (schools) within the United States of America (e.g. Curtis,
Van Horne, Robertson, & Karvonen, 2010; McClean et al., 2005). Being based
on behavioural approaches, its utility is clearly much broader than the current
contexts it is being employed in (Allen, James, Evans, Hawkins, & Jenkins,
2005). This article focuses on the implementation of PBS within a medium
secure forensic mental health service in south Wales (see Griffiths & Wilcox,
2013).

Confidence with respect to challenging behaviour is a key issue in the
effectiveness of carer support. Thackrey (1987) defines confidence in managing
challenging behaviour as the ‘self-attributed ability, preparation, and comfort in
safely and effectively intervening psychologically and physically with the
aggressive service user for purposes of self-preservation and therapeutic inter-
vention’ (p. 58). Increasing staff confidence in managing challenging beha-
viour acts to increase levels of proactive and therapeutic intervention whilst
ensuring the safety of both service users and staff alike (Martin & Daffern,
2006). When employing the ‘therapeutics for aggression’ training programme,
Thackrey (1987) found that confidence in managing aggression not only
increased after training but was maintained eighteen months post intervention.
However, where confidence has been measured in forensic or mental health
staff populations, the training provided has tended to focus on physical inter-
ventions and legal considerations as opposed to positive behavioural
approaches (e.g. Martin & Daffern, 2006; McGowan, Wynaden, Harding,
Yassine, & Parker, 1999; Thackrey, 1987). Moreover, confidence was measured
a number of months after training (McGowan et al., 1999) or measured more
generally, rather than as a specific outcome measure of training (Martin &
Daffern, 2006). The training administered within the Thackrey (1987) paper
did include ‘principles of psychological assessment and intervention’; however,
very little detail was given on what these involved and whether or not punitive
approaches were advocated.

Data on the impact of PBS training on staff confidence in managing chal-
lenging behaviour have been gathered from learning disability staff samples.
Lowe et al. (2007) found significant increases in staff reported confidence in
dealing with challenging behaviours after training. These gains were main-
tained or further increased over time for both qualified and unqualified staff.
Similar results were demonstrated by Tierney, Quinlan, and Hastings (2007),
who showed increases in self-efficacy after training about understanding and
responding to challenging behaviour within learning disability services; these
improvements were maintained at three-month follow-up.

848 B. Davies et al.

Another method used in assessing the effectiveness of training in PBS is the
measurement of attributions for causality, control and stability of challenging
behaviour and the degree to which they change after training. Attribution theory
was brought to the fore by the work of Weiner (1980) who recognised the impact
of attributions on care-giving behaviour. He identified three key dimensions of
‘Locus’, ‘Stability’ and ‘Controllability’. Locus is the degree to which carers
attribute challenging behaviour as being due to factors within the individual,
such as personality or mental health, or factors external to the individual, for
example being reprimanded, unsettled or noisy environment. Stability is the
degree to which carers believe that behaviour is either stable or changeable over
time. Controllability is the degree to which carers believe the behaviour is within
the control of the individual or not, for example if someone is acutely psychotic,
their behaviour may not be seen as controllable by them. Weiner found that help-
ing behaviour was lowest when behaviour was viewed as stable, internal and
controllable, engendering feelings of disgust and anger. In contrast, when beha-
viour was viewed as external to person, changeable and uncontrollable, helping
behaviour was elicited as well as positive affect, such as sympathy. Evidence
supporting Weiner’s work is found in studies examining carers working in learn-
ing disability, mental health, homeless and forensic services, and with individuals
who self-harm (e.g. Forsyth, 2007; Leggett & Silvester, 2003; Markham &
Trower, 2003; Meddings & Levey, 2000; Stanley & Standen, 2000); Urquart
Law, Rosthill-Brooks, & Goodman, 2009.

In considering care provision for those viewed as dangerous by society, it
is logical to assume that care staff will be influenced by societal views. These
may impact on their attributions relating to challenging behaviours and the
nature of their engagement with this client group. MacKinlay and Langdon
(2009) studied sexual offenders with a learning disability and identified that
challenging behaviour, and sexual offending was viewed as internal, stable and
controllable by the service user, but less controllable than challenging beha-
viour more generally. Barrowclough et al. (2001) studied staff attributions
within a low secure service for people with severe mental health problems.
They found that staff tended to view the behaviour of service users they were
less positively disposed to as more controllable by them, and more stable,
which, in turn, was related to a more critical and negative attitude. Quinsey
and Cyr (1986) studied clinicians’ perceptions of the dangerousness and
treatability of offenders and found a negative relationship between them. They
found perceived dangerousness to be positively associated with ratings of
responsibility, internality of cause, greater stability of cause and greater
controllability of cause. Offenders with external causality were perceived as
more treatable. Similarly, Reid and Millard (1995) demonstrated that when care
staff, within a high secure hospital, believed there was a high degree of
controllability and stability of service users behaviours, they were perceived as
less treatable. Leggett and Silvester (2003) found that more aversive tech-
niques, such as seclusion, were more likely to be used when staff perceived

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 849

behaviours to be more controllable by service users. Sharrock, Day, Qazi, and
Brewin (1990) studied care staff within a medium secure forensic service, they
found attributions of challenging behaviours to unstable factors was associated
with higher levels of optimism and increased helping behaviour. Overall, these
results would suggest that the more knowledge staff have about the factors that
can cause challenging behaviour, the more likely they are to respond in a
positively.

A key element in PBS training is to educate people about the internal and
external factors that contribute to challenging behaviour. Research has demon-
strated that changes in attributions of causality and control after PBS training
are variable. Lowe et al. (2007) found that, after the delivery of a ten-day train-
ing package on PBS, changes occurred in causal attributions of challenging
behaviour (as measured using the challenging behaviour attributions scale
(CHABA)) immediately following the training sessions for both qualified and
unqualified staff. However, these gains were short lived, with a return to base-
line levels within the one-year follow-up. Similar results were found by Dowey,
Toogood, Hastings, and Nash (2007) in evaluating a one-day training course on
PBS. This study showed that training successfully increased staff’s use of accu-
rate causal attributions for challenging behaviour suggesting that similar results
can be reached within a shorter training time. Again, these studies have been
undertaken within learning disabilities services where the PBS approach is more
widely utilised. In contrast, McKenzie, Sharp, Paxton, and Murray (2002) and
Tierney et al. (2007) found no significant changes in staff attributions for chal-
lenging behaviours after training in PBS. A review of the studies concluded that
training in challenging behaviour did have an effect on attributions, particularly
when it involved discussions around the causes of challenging behaviour
(Williams, Dagnan, Rodgers, & McDowell, 2012). This, they concluded, was a
key factor in the training’s success and studies where this was not an integral
part of training reported no significant changes in attributions (McDonnell
et al., 2008).

Although the impact of PBS-based training on increasing confidence and
modifying attributions for challenging behaviours has been shown in studies
within learning disability services, albeit with some variability in success, it
has not been validated within mental health secure services. This novel
application of the PBS model within forensic mental health services in this
study aimed to assess the potential benefits for staff both in terms of modifying
causal attributions and increasing reported confidence in managing challenging
behaviours after training in PBS. The hypotheses were:

(1) Confidence would increase after staff training in PBS.
(2) Attributions for external causes of challenging behaviour would

increase and that there would be reductions in attributions of internal
causality, stability and personal control.

850 B. Davies et al.

Method section

Participants

Participants were staff members currently employed at a medium secure
service in the South Wales region. PBS training was implemented on the acute
wards, and so staff from these areas were invited to attend the training. In
total, 79 participants took part in the training, see Table 1 for information
regarding the role and gender of participants.

Instruments

Staff members’ confidence in dealing with challenging behaviour was assessed
using an adapted version of the Confidence in Coping with Patient Aggression
Instrument (Thackrey, 1987). The adaptation of this instrument was undertaken
by a clinical psychologist who was also responsible for writing and delivering
the PBS training. It included questions related to staff confidence in the
delivery of PBS, as opposed to physical interventions which the original ques-
tionnaire was designed for, and changed the language from ‘aggression’ to
‘challenging behaviour’ to encompass the broader range of behaviours dis-
played by service users. The scale was shorter than the original and comprised
of eight questions (as opposed to ten) rated on a seven-point likert scale to
assess participants’ perceived level of confidence in understanding and
responding to challenging behaviour. The instrument has good face validity
and shows good internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha at .88. In the
development of the original instrument, extensive piloting was done by
Thackery (1987), testing the items on 236 professionals to ensure their validity.
Further validity testing would need to be completed on this current version of
the scale.

The CHABA (Hastings, 1997) assesses changes in causal attributions,
which may interact with other variables to determine staff responses to chal-
lenging behaviour. The scale comprised 33 items requiring participants to rate
the determinants of challenging behaviour on a five-point rating scale ranging

Table 1. Information relating to participants.

N = 79 Qualified (N = 48) Unqualified (N = 31)

Male 11 24
Female 37 7

Nurse 33 27
Student nurse 2
Occupational therapist 5 4
Clinical psychologist 4
Assistant psychologist 4

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 851

from ‘Very Unlikely’ with a score of −2, to ‘Very likely’ with a score of 2.
This measure has acceptable levels of reliability with Cronbach’s alpha values
between .65 and .87. The author identifies that there is no validity data avail-
able for the CHABA due to lack of external validation criteria; however, this
measure is widely used within learning disability research (e.g. Lowe et al.,
2007; Tierney et al., 2007). The definitions of the variables measured within
the CHABA are listed below:

Learned – overall learning – learned positive and negative
Learned negative – avoid something – e.g. difficult or uninteresting tasks,

disliked person
Learned positive – to gain something – e.g. attention/tangible item
Biomedical – Physical illness/need (e.g. hunger or thirst), medication
Emotional – Mood and emotion
Physical environment – Noise, lack of space, crowded, too light
Stimulation – Boredom, lack of activity or interaction
The final measure employed was the causal dimension scale II (CDS)

(McAuley, Duncan, & Russell, 1992) to determine to what extent participants
attributed challenging behaviour to four factors: locus of causality, stability, exter-
nal control and personal control. Reliability coefficients range between .60 and .92
for the four factors. Confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence of construct
validity and support for the four-factor model within this scale (McAuley et al.,
1992). This measure has been widely used in attributional research in a number of
contexts (e.g. Ball, 2013; Boisvert & Faust, 1999). The measure comprised 12
items with a scale ranging between 1 and 9 between two poles.

For example:
This reflects an aspect of the service user 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This reflects an aspect of the situation
The definitions of the variables measured within the CDS are listed below:

Locus of causality

The degree to which the behaviour was caused by the service user or the envi-
ronment/ others. A lower score reflects an environmental cause, and a higher
score reflects the locus of causality being viewed as within the service user.

External control

The degree to which others have control over the individual’s behaviour. A
lower score reflects less environmental/other persons control, and a higher
reflects more control attributed to the environment or others.

Personal control

The degree to which the behaviour was controllable by the service user. A
lower score reflects a view that the behaviour was less controllable by the

852 B. Davies et al.

service user; with a higher score, the behaviour is viewed as more controllable
by the service user.

Stability

The degree to which the behaviour was seen as stable or changeable. A higher
score indicates that the behaviour is viewed as less changeable and more
permanent, whereas a lower score indicates the view that behaviours can
change.

Procedure

The PBS training packages were developed by a Clinical Psychologist
employed within the service. These were based on elements of the online PBS
training developed by learning disability services within the same health board
(ABMU Directorate of Learning Disabilities: BTEC e-learning qualifications in
PBS. [email protected]). This same Psychologist was also responsible for
delivering the training, with some assistance from a ward manager. The train-
ing packages for the qualified and unqualified participants varied slightly
because of the different roles and responsibilities that the respective staff mem-
bers hold within the service The training package for the qualified staff was
one full day in duration and covered basic teaching and education around PBS
as well as practicing skills associated with PBS such as completing a func-
tional analysis and identifying primary and secondary prevention strategies.
The training for the unqualified staff members was half-a-day and included
basic teaching and education around PBS alongside an introduction into
antecedent, behaviour and consequence (ABC) charts.

The recruitment process was based on ward managers allocating staff to
attend the training days offered; there was an expectation in the service for all
staff to attend the training and regular dates were provided to managers via
e-mail and ward managers meetings. At the beginning and end of the training,
attendees were asked whether they would participate by completing the
questionnaire. It was explained that the data would be used to evaluate the
training and they gave verbal consent for their data to be used in this study.
These self-report questionnaires were completed within the training room in
the presence of the facilitators. No participants requested assistance to complete
any of the self-report measures. Upon completion of the post measures, partici-
pants were verbally debriefed once more about how the questionnaire results
were intended to be used.

Ethical approval

As the study did not involve accessing any patients or patient identifiable data,
ethical approval was not necessary and this was confirmed by the Research

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 853

and Development Department of the NHS Health Board. All participants were
informed that we were collecting data before and after the training in order to
evaluate it. To protect confidentiality, the pre- and post-questionnaire measures
were anonymous and attached together, ensuring they came from the same per-
son. Information sheets and consent forms were not used, but participants were
informed verbally about the questionnaires and had the choice whether or not
to complete them.

Statistical analysis

All data were entered into IBM SPSS version 20 for Windows and checked
for accuracy by the first author. Data were described and distribution was
checked using the Shapiro–Wilk test. A number of variables on the CHABA
and the CDS were not normally distributed, therefore the Wilcoxon signed-
rank non-parametric test was used to assess for differences pre- and post-
training in these variables. A related t-test was used to calculate whether there
was a significant difference between confidence pre- and post-training as this
was normally distributed. Baseline and post-training comparisons between
qualified and unqualified staff were made using Mann–Whitney U tests.

Results

The means and ranges for pre- and post-training measures and for qualified
and unqualified staff are shown in Table 2. In addition, Table 2 presents differ-
ences between qualified and unqualified staff before and after training.

Unqualified staff were significantly more confident in working with chal-
lenging behaviour than qualified staff (p = .007) at baseline, yet after training,
this significant difference was no longer evident, with a large increase in the
confidence of the qualified staff. A related t-test showed that confidence in
working with challenging behaviour significantly increased after training for
both qualified (t (29) = −6.56, p = <.001) and unqualified staff (t (27) = −5.67, p = <.001). Hypothesis 1 was therefore supported, and confidence in working with challenging behaviour increased for both qualified and unqualified staff after training in PBS. At baseline, and after training, qualified staff attributed challenging behaviour to external causes, such as ‘Physical Environment’ (p = .008) and ‘Stimulation’ (p = .006), significantly more than unqualified staff, though the difference did reduce after training they remained significant. Unqualified staff considered challenging behaviour to be significantly more stable than qualified staff both before (p = .004) and after (p = <.001) training. As a number of the attribution variables were not normally distributed, the Wilcoxon signed-rank non-parametric test was used to assess for differences pre- and post-training. Both qualified and unqualified staff showed significant increases, after training in PBS, in attributing the causes of challenging behaviour to learning, learned 854 B. Davies et al. T ab le 2. T ab le sh ow in g th e m ea n an d th e ra ng e sc or es pr e- an d po st -P B S tr ai ni ng an d di ff er en ce s id en ti fi ed be tw ee n qu al ifi ed an d un qu al ifi ed st af f us in g M an n– W hi tn ey U te st s. P re -t ra in in g P os t- tr ai ni ng Q ua li fi ed m ea n (r an ge ) U nq ua lifi ed m ea n (r an ge ) S ig ni fi ca nt di ff er en ce – p− 2 ta il Q ua lifi ed m ea n (r an ge ) U nq ua li fi ed m ea n (r an ge ) S ig ni fi ca nt di ff er en ce – p− 2 ta il C on fi de nc e 37 .5 2 (2 7– 49 ) 41 .2 1 (2 3– 50 ) .0 07 ** 44 .8 0 (3 5– 54 ) 47 .0 0 (3 9– 56 ) .1 64 C H A B A le ar ne d 5. 13 (0 –1 2) 4. 34 (0 –1 1) .2 37 6. 91 (0 –1 2) 6. 13 (0 –1 2) .2 76 C H A B A le ar ne d po s. 3. 13 (0 –6 ) 3. 07 (− 1– 6) .9 96 3. 79 (− 1– 6) 3. 60 (0 –6 ) .5 40 C H A B A le ar ne d ne g. 2. 00 (− 3– 6) 1. 19 (− 2– 5) .0 51 3. 06 (− 2– 6) 2. 53 (− 1– 6) .1 34 C H A B A bi om ed ic al 1. 87 (− 11 –1 1) 1. 71 (− 4– 11 ) .5 49 4. 47 (− 6– 12 ) 3. 97 (− 5– 12 ) .4 44 C H A B A ph ys ic al en v. 2. 28 (− 12 –1 1) − .0 32 (− 13 –1 1) .0 08 ** 6. 04 (− 11 –1 6) 4. 32 (− 5– 16 ) .0 49 * C H A B A em ot io na l 9. 36 (3 –1 4) 9. 06 (1 –2 1) .5 77 10 .1 7 (0 –1 4) 9. 38 (0 –1 4) .4 07 C H A B A st im ul at io n 3. 09 (− 4– 11 ) .7 8 (− 7– 9) .0 06 ** 4. 21 (− 3– 12 ) 2. 17 (− 4– 12 ) .0 12 * C D S lo cu s of ca us al ity 15 .5 6 (1 0– 26 ) 15 .6 4 (8 –2 3) .6 89 13 .8 2 (6 –2 1) 15 .8 5 (1 2– 23 ) .0 98 C D S ex te rn al co nt ro l 9. 98 (3 –1 8) 9. 86 (6 –1 4) .8 85 10 .1 8 (4 –1 5) 9. 85 (6 –1 5) .4 63 C D S st ab ili ty 11 .0 2 (6 –1 6) 13 .3 2 (6 –2 1) .0 04 ** 10 .0 0 (3 –1 5) 13 .2 2 (8 –1 7) < .0 01 ** C D S pe rs on al co nt ro l 14 .0 0 (5 –2 3) 14 .2 8 (8 –2 7) .9 86 12 .1 6 (3 –2 1) 14 .5 9 (1 0– 19 ) .0 15 ** p < .0 1; *p < .0 5. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 855 negative, biomedical causes, the physical environment and levels of stimula- tion, as shown in Table 3. However, qualified staff also showed a significant increase in attributing the cause of challenging behaviour to learned positive, while no significant change was noted for unqualified staff in this. Hypothesis 2 was therefore partially supported, with increases in attributions for the exter- nal causes of challenging behaviour for both qualified an unqualified staff in relation to learning, learned negative, the physical environment and levels of stimulation. There was, however, not a reduction in attribution to internal causes on the CHABA, with both qualified and unqualified staff showing an increase of attributing behaviour to ‘Biomedical’ causes, and no significant changes in relation to ‘Emotional’ causes. With regard to variables measured on the CDS, significant reductions were found in attributing locus of causality of challenging behaviour to the service user (p = .001) and considering challenging behaviour as stable and changeable (p = .026) by the qualified staff but not the unqualified staff. There were no significant changes in scores on the external control or personal control domains for either qualified or unqualified staff. Hypothesis 2 was therefore only partially supported in relation to the reduction of attributing challenging behaviour cause to the service user, and seeing challenging behaviour as less stable, by the qualified staff, but not the unqualified staff. In addition, there were no changes in relation to attributions for external or personal control for either qualified or unqualified staff. As significant changes were observed with the qualified staff but not unqualified staff in relation to ‘Locus of Causality’ and ‘Stability’, the difference in the amount of change was compared between the two groups to identify if this was significant using the Mann–Whitney U test, due to the Table 3. The results of Wilcoxon signed-rank test showing changes in attributions for challenging behaviour, as measured by the CHABA and CDS-II, after training in PBS. Qualified staff Unqualified staff z n p − 2 tail z n p − 2 tail CHABA learned −3.782 45 <.001** −2.995 29 .003** CHABA learned pos. −2.770 46 .006** −1.828 29 .068 CHABA learned neg. −3.642 46 <.001** −3.095 30 .002** CHABA biomedical −4.446 42 <.001** −2.741 27 .006** CHABA physical env. −4.474 42 <.001** −4.036 26 <.001** CHABA emotional −1.948 44 .051 −.737 29 .461 CHABA stimulation −2.911 47 .004** −2.488 26 .013* CDS locus of causality −3.267 43 .001** −.262 27 .794 CDS external control −.554 44 .580 −.094 27 .925 CDS stability −2.228 44 .026* −.244 26 .807 CDS personal control −1.932 42 .053 −.824 27 .410 **p < .01; *p < .05. 856 B. Davies et al. non-parametric nature of some of the data. The only variable showing a significant difference in the change made was locus of causality. Qualified staff made a significantly greater reduction than unqualified staff in attributing the locus of causality to the service user (U = 362, p = .008). Discussion Staff reported feeling more confident in their ability to manage challenging behaviour following PBS training, these results supporting hypothesis one. Prior to training, unqualified staff rated themselves as significantly more confi- dent than qualified staff in dealing with challenging behaviour, this difference no longer existed after training, and improvements were seen for both qualified and unqualified staff in their self-reported confidence. These results reflect those of other findings, largely within learning disabilities services, demonstrat- ing improvements in confidence through the introduction of PBS training (Lowe et al., 2007; Tierney et al., 2007). Attributions for challenging behaviours are important due to the well- established links between attributions and helping behaviours (Weiner, 1980). All causal attributions, measured using the CHABA, increased significantly for qualified and unqualified members of staff, with the exception ‘Learned Posi- tive’ attributions which significantly increased only for qualified staff, and of ‘Emotional’ attributions which showed no significant change for either group. The second hypothesis was therefore partially supported in relation to the CHABA measures as attribution for external causes did increase however … Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Research Questions and Hypotheses Checklist Use the following criteria to evaluate an author’s research questions and/or hypotheses. Look for indications of the following: • Is the research question(s) a logical extension of the purpose of the study? • Does the research question(s) reflect the best question to address the problem? • Does the research question(s) align with the design of the study? • Does the research question(s) align with the method identified for collecting data? If the study is qualitative, does the research question(s) do as follows? • Relate the central question to the qualitative approach • Begin with What or How (not Why) • Focus on a single phenomenon • Use exploratory verbs • Use nondirectional language • Use an open-ended format • Specify the participants and research site If the study is quantitative: • Do the descriptive questions seek to describe responses to major variables? • Do the inferential questions seek to compare groups or relate variables? • Do the inferential questions follow from a theory? • Are the variables positioned consistently from independent/predictor to dependent/outcome in the inferential questions? • Is a null and/or alternative hypothesis provided as a predictive statement? Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 2 • Is the hypothesis consistent with its respective research question? • Does the question(s) and/or hypothesis specify the participants and research site? If the study is mixed methods, do the research questions and/or hypotheses do the following? • Include the characteristics of a good qualitative research question (as listed above) • Include the characteristics of a good quantitative research and/or hypothesis (as listed above) • Indicate how the researcher will mix or integrate the two approaches of the study • Specify the participants and research site • Convey the overall intent of the study that calls for a mixed methods approach Research Questions and Hypotheses Checklist