International Journal of Disability, Development and

Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20

Addressing Challenging Behaviours in Children

with Autism: A Qualitative Analysis of Teachers’
Experiences

David Simó-Pinatella, Cristina Günther-Bel & Cristina Mumbardó-Adam

To cite this article: David Simó-Pinatella, Cristina Günther-Bel & Cristina Mumbardó-Adam
(2021): Addressing Challenging Behaviours in Children with Autism: A Qualitative Analysis of
Teachers’ Experiences, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, DOI:
10.1080/1034912X.2020.1870664

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1870664

Published online: 16 Jan 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 182

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cijd20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1870664

Addressing Challenging Behaviours in Children with Autism:

A Qualitative Analysis of Teachers’ Experiences
a a a,b
David Simó-Pinatella , Cristina Günther-Bel and Cristina Mumbardó-Adam
a
Faculty of Psychology Education and Sport Sciences, Blanquerna Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain;
b
Psychology and Educational Sciences Studies, Open University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The challenging behaviours of children with autism spectrum dis­ Autism; barriers; challenging
order (ASD) have been widely described as one of the most sig­ behaviour; potential factors;
nificant sources of stress for teachers. However, less attention has school settings; supports;
teachers’ perspectives;
been paid to the potential of teachers’ perspectives as a source of
understanding
knowledge to improve their practice. The purpose of this study was
to explore teachers’ experiences in managing the challenging
behaviour of children with ASD. Specifically, we aimed to identify
the perceived supports and barriers in their daily work routine.
Using a snowball sampling procedure, 10 teachers from
a segregated setting and general education schools were inter­
viewed. Through thematic analysis, some themes were identified
across participants, suggesting perceived barriers (Behaviour mis­
understanding, Relationships, and School administration) and per­
ceived supports (Challenging behaviour knowledge and expertise,
Human resources, and School management). In addition, the results
demonstrated potential supports that could improve teachers’
experiences (Challenging behaviour specialisation, Leadership team,
and Shared language and perceptions). These findings have implica­
tions for the understanding of teachers’ needs and may also inform
the refinement and development of strategies to facilitate their
work when managing the challenging behaviour of their students
with ASD. The relevance of these findings for practice and further
research are discussed.

Introduction
A wealth of scientific evidence supports the idea that children with autism spectrum
disorder (ASD) tend to engage in challenging behaviours (CBs). Children with ASD face
specific challenges related to their difficulties with understanding and engaging in social
communication and interaction and to their restricted and repetitive patterns of beha­
viour, interests, or activities (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013), which can
hinder a child’s interaction with his/her environment, easily perpetuating the occurrence
of CBs. Although estimations of the prevalence of CBs vary, and it is dependent on
multiple variables (Simó-Pinatella et al., 2017), researchers have reported high prevalence
rates of CBs in children with ASD (i.e., Jang, Dixon, Tarbox, & Granpeesheh, 2011; Kanne &
Mazurek, 2011; Murphy, Healy, & Leader, 2009). For example, McTiernan, Leader, Healy,

CONTACT David Simó-Pinatella DAVIDSP@blanquerna.url.edu

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 D. SIMÓ PINATELLA ET AL.

and Mannion (2011) explored the prevalence of CBs by using the Behaviour Problems
Inventory (Rojahn, Matson, Lott, Esbensen, & Smalls, 2001) with a sample of 174 children
with ASD and intellectual disability and identified that the prevalence of children enga­
ging in at least one type of CB was 93.7%.
The impact of these behaviours on professionals who provide support to individuals
with ASD has been explored (i.e., Butrimaviciute & Grieve, 2014) and has emphasised the
uniqueness of working with individuals with ASD who present CBs, because of the intense
physical and mental engagement required (Butrimaviciute & Grieve, 2014). Further ana­
lyses of professionals’ experiences in providing support to individuals with ASD and CBs
across the lifespan has the potential to improve the responses to professionals’ needs and
avoid burnout experiences. In this sense, the CB engaged in by children with ASD in
educational settings has been strongly associated with teachers’ burnout (Brunsting,
Sreckovic, & Lane, 2014) and has been described as one of the more significant sources
of teachers’ stress (Hastings & Brown, 2002; Lecavalier, Leone, & Wiltz, 2006). As stressful as
CBs might be for teachers, CBs strongly impact students because these behaviours
negatively affect their access to the curriculum (Rae, Murray, & McKenzie, 2011). For
example, severe behaviours such as self-injury and aggression towards others usually
lead to student classroom or school exclusion (Roberts & Simpson, 2016), resulting in
fewer learning opportunities for students with ASD. The presence of these behaviours
negatively impact school climate (Ögülmüs & Vuran, 2016). Thus, more efforts need to be
done to build more preventive, effective and positive school systems, for example by
organising and designing supports within a multitiered system (McIntosh & Goodman,
2016). A multitiered system of supports (MTSS) is a comprehensive approach that incor­
porates instruction, assessment, and decision-making processes within differentiated
levels (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Within this framework, Tier 1 supports are universally
and preventively designed to offer opportunities for learning to all students, Tier 2
supports are directed to a small group of students who require more support needs,
and Tier 3 supports are implemented for students with pervasive support needs. The
ultimate goal of the multitiered system of supports implementation encompasses the
promotion of social, behavioural, and academic competencies, and serves as a guide for
support allocation. In this sense, further research into the perspectives of teachers and
students with ASD in challenging situations and environments at school may strengthen
the knowledge of how to build a more positive and less challenging environment for
teachers and children with ASD (Roberts & Simpson, 2016) within the MTSS framework.
Regardless of the negative impact of CBs on teachers’ endeavours, most of the
literature on professionals’ perspectives of teaching children with ASD has traditionally
focused on supports for and challenges to teaching these children in mainstream settings.
For example, Lindsay, Proulx, Scott, and Thomson (2014) identified teamwork, an open
communication system with parents, and creating a climate of acceptance amongst peers
as relevant strategies to include children with ASD in mainstream classrooms. General
education training has also emerged as a common challenge (i.e., Corkum et al., 2014;
Hayes, Casey, Williamson, Black, & Winsor, 2013; Segall & Campbell, 2012; Syriopoulou-
Delli, Cassimos, Tripsianis, & Polychronopoulou, 2012) because teacher training remains
insufficient to respond to the needs of students with ASD in mainstream schools
(McGillicuddy & O’Donnell, 2014). Key stakeholders, teachers, and teaching assistants
call for additional training when teaching students with ASD (Corkum et al., 2014),
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 3

specifically regarding these students’ behavioural needs and their management (Soto-
Chodiman, Pooley, Cohen, & Taylor, 2012).
Despite the acknowledgement of the need for in-depth training in CB management,
less attention has been paid to investigating teachers’ needs when managing the CBs of
their students with ASD, either in mainstream or segregated settings. Exploring teachers’
perspectives of the supports for and barriers to responding to these children’s beha­
vioural needs has the potential to inform support providers and stakeholders on how well
inclusive education policies have worked thus far to respond to educational challenges
(Syriopoulou-Delli et al., 2012); thus, next steps for intervention and research are also
presented. The purpose of this study is to explore teachers’ perceptions of behaviour
management of children with ASD. Specifically, the study aims to identify useful resources
in school settings and the barriers to teaching activities and management of CBs.

Method
Design
This study employed a qualitative and inductive design. The inductive logic focused on
‘patterns found in the cases under study without presupposing in advance what the
important dimensions will be’ (Patton, 2002, p. 56). Consistent with this design, the
approach to the study problem was not motivated by the aim to test a hypothesis but
to understand participants’ views and their experiences through interviews. By used this
methodology, we aimed to respond to the need to enhance the potential of qualitative
research in the field study of autism (Bölte, 2014).

Participants and Context

We interviewed 10 teachers from special (i.e., segregated settings) and general education
schools from Barcelona, Spain. Despite the efforts to foster universal educational settings
for all students in Spain (Duran, Giné, & Marchesi, 2010), most students with high
incidence disabilities remain enrolled in special education schools whereas some children
with mild and moderate intellectual and developmental disabilities attend regular classes
in mainstream schools . Within this context, children with ASD enrolled in segregated
settings are more likely to present co-occurring intellectual disability.
Using a snowball sampling procedure, participants were asked to suggest subsequent
participants who were suitable to provide rich information on the research questions and
fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: (a) teachers with more than 5 years of working
experience and (b) recent professional experience – within the last academic year – with
children with autism presenting CBs. For clarity, some participant characteristics are
presented in Table 1.
Resulting participants for this study were 10 primary teachers (children’s age between
six and 12 years old); six working in special schools and four in mainstream schools.
Teachers from special settings had a group class between six and eight students; all of
them with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Instead, teachers from mainstream
school had between 20 and 25 students in their regular classes.
4 D. SIMÓ PINATELLA ET AL.

Table 1. Participants demographic information.

Participant Gender Age Teaching experience (years) School typology
1 Female 33 10 Special education
2 Female 44 19 Mainstream
3 Male 46 24 Special education
4 Female 42 22 Special education
5 Female 48 20 Special education
6 Female 42 15 Mainstream
7 Male 36 10 Mainstream
8 Female 45 23 Special education
9 Female 37 16 Mainstream
10 Female 30 9 Special education

Data Collection
Individual semi-structured interviews were used to obtain the qualitative data. An inter­
view guide was developed to ensure that the same questions were administered to all
respondents while considering the possibility of supplementing the questions if any
respondents had difficulties in elaborating on their perspectives (Wilkinson, Joffe, &
Yardley, 2004). The interview guide contained four sets of questions. The first set was
prepared to collect sociodemographics. The second set involved questions on the parti­
cipants’ general understanding of autism, managing CBs, and coping strategies. The third
and fourth sets focused on, respectively, facilitating and nonfacilitating elements experi­
enced in their everyday work when addressing CBs in children with autism.
All the participants were informed of the purpose of the study before obtaining their
signed consent. The duration of the interviews was on average 60 minutes, and the
interviews were recorded on a digital voice recorder. All the interviews were conducted
by the third author and later transcribed verbatim by the two first authors, ensuring the
participants’ anonymity (e.g., using pseudonyms or removing the name of their
employer). The final review of the transcripts for accuracy was conducted by the third
author.

Data Analysis
Thematic analysis was used to identify, analyse, and report patterns (themes) within the
data and followed a procedure of six phases (Braun & Clarke, 2006): (a) familiarising
ourselves with the data, transcribing, reading, and rereading the data, and jotting down
initial ideas; (b) generating initial notable features of the data or what are called codes; (c)
collating codes and searching for potential themes; (d) reviewing themes and generating
a thematic map of the analysis; (e) defining and naming themes, and refining the specifics
of each theme; and (f) producing the report of the analysis. The results of the analysis were
visually organised in hierarchical order, in which codes were clustered into subthemes,
and subthemes were clustered into themes. The analysis was aided by ATLAS.ti software
for Windows (v. 8) and was conducted from a constructivist paradigm. From this position,
as defined by Denzin and Lincoln (2005), the authors assumed a relativistic ontology
(importance of meanings and subjective experience), a subjectivist epistemology
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 5

(researchers and participants co-create knowledge), and a naturalistic methodology (in

the participants’ real-life environment).

Quality and Trustworthiness

Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Research Committee of Ramon Llull University.
To ensure the quality of this study, the authors followed the guidelines for qualitative
studies in special education proposed by Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, and
Richardson (2005). Several measures were taken to ensure trustworthiness.
First, the authors offered a detailed description of other notable aspects of the research
procedure (e.g., participant selection, participant characteristics, context and interview
questions) so that readers could determine the degree of transferability to other settings.
Second, the authors acknowledged their constructivist theoretical position. Moreover,
one of the three researchers conducting the analysis had no previous experience in the
field of special education, which was considered helpful in identifying possible precon­
ceived ideas.
Third, to increase the rigour of the research and avoid researchers’ bias, the three
authors participated in the analytic task in a continuous peer engagement process. To
achieve this objective, the interviews were independently coded by the first two authors.
Inter-rater reliability procedures were conducted by coding the list of three of the 10
interviews, and an initial agreement of 91.5% was reached between co-coders.
Subsequently, the emergent codes, themes, and subthemes were reviewed and discussed
between the three authors until complete agreement on the final codification was
achieved.
Finally, the authors provided quotes from the data to illustrate their findings and
ground them in examples.

Results
In Figure 1, three main themes emerged throughout the analysis of teachers’ experiences
of managing the CBs of students with ASD: (a) supports and (b) barriers to their teaching
activity and management of CBs, and (c) potential supports that could improve their
experiences. Results are presented to emphasise the settings (i.e., mainstream or segre­
gated schools) where the themes and subthemes surfaced.

Supports
When describing what acted as a support in developing teachers’ activities and managing
CBs, three subthemes were observed: CB knowledge and expertise in managing CB,
human resources, and school management acted as facilitators.

Challenging Behaviour Knowledge and Expertise

All the teachers acknowledged that gaining a deeper understanding of CB and its
management strengthened their teaching. First, teachers from mainstream and special
schools emphasised that having deep knowledge and extensive training in managing
6 D. SIMÓ PINATELLA ET AL.

Challenging behaviour
knowledge an d Regular training (MS: 1; SS:5); Informal training (MS: 1; SS:3); Own experience
expertise (MS: 3; SS:4); Lear ned intervention strat egies (MS: 4; SS:6)
(MS: 4; SS:6)
Emotional support provided by colleagu es (MS: 1; SS:6); Team /collab orat ive
Human resources
Supports work (MS: 4; SS:5); Support from the student’s fam ily (MS: 2; SS:1); Support
(MS: 4; SS:6)
from other classroom students (MS: 3; SS: 0)
School man agement Lead ership team support (MS: 0; SS: 3); Resources man agement (MS: 2; SS: 2);
(MS: 2; SS: 5) Support from other professionals (MS: 2; SS: 3)

Behaviour
misunderstan ding Lack of knowledge to ad dress students needs (MS: 3; SS: 2); Limited training at
(MS: 4; SS:3) college/university (MS: 4; SS: 1); Lack of practical exam ple (MS: 2; SS: 3)
Relat ionships Other external entities (MS: 3; SS: 1); Student fam ily (MS: 2; SS: 2); Negat ive
Bar riers
(MS: 3; SS:3) at titudes from students an d other teachers (MS: 3; SS: 1)

School ad ministrat ion School organ isat ion (MS: 3; SS: 6); Classroom organ isat ion (MS: 3; SS: 4); Lack
(MS: 4; SS:6) of human an d economic resources (MS: 2; SS: 3)

Challenging behaviour
Training an d expertise (MS: 2; SS: 3); Intervention strat egies (MS: 3; SS: 0);
specializat ion
External support (MS: 0; SS: 2)
(MS: 2; SS: 4)

Potential Lead ership team Human an d spaces man agement (MS: 2; SS: 4); Scheduling moments to promote
supports (MS: 2; SS: 4) teachers emotional wellbeing (MS: 0; SS: 2)

Shar ed lan guage an d

perceptions
(MS: 4; SS: 2)

Figure 1. Themes, subthemes and examples of thematic analys. MS = Mainstream Schools;

SS = Segregated Schools.

students with ASD that present CBs has positively affected their work. Most of the
teachers from the special schools pointed out that specialised and regular training (e.g.,
positive behaviour support training) had clearly enhanced their knowledge. One teacher
highlighted that this training should involve the entire school (i.e., teachers, headmasters,
paraprofessionals) and not only the professionals working in the classroom. Second, both
groups (special and mainstream teachers) acknowledged that informal training has the
potential to enlarge the network of experts and professionals in the work environment.
Additionally, handling CB assessment creates a deeper understanding and greater profi­
ciency in managing it because this process contextualises the specific behaviour.
Understanding the behaviour grounded in a determined context of occurrence may
trigger a change in teachers’ conceptions of their students’ difficulties. Furthermore,
one participant from a segregated setting stressed the need to record intervention data
as a means to guide intervention decision-making processes.
Most of the teachers stressed that their own experience in managing CBs exhibited by
students with ASD added to their understanding of the behaviour and its function (e.g.,
Participant 1: ‘Having previously worked with students with high support needs has been of
great help to handle a group of students with disruptive behaviours’). In addition to gaining
teaching expertise through years of practice, as one of the teachers working in the
mainstream schools added, being the parent of a child with similar disabilities has allowed
her to better understand her students with ASD behaviours.
After years of intervening with these students, teachers have developed a variety of
intervention strategies to address antecedent events and behavioural consequences. In
terms of antecedent events, participants displayed organisational strategies related to the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 7

three tiers of support and intervention: the student exhibiting CBs, the main classroom,
and the entire school. Regarding strategies directed towards consequences, examples of
strategies provided by participants were mostly focused on addressing the behaviour
(e.g., extinction or time-out strategies), and one teacher from a mainstream school
introduced strategies intended to positively reinforce appropriate behaviour.

Human Resources
Teachers reported four major human resources when managing challenging behaviour
exhibited by children with ASD: emotional support provided by colleagues, team/colla­
borative work, and support from peers and families. Emotional support was either pro­
vided by colleagues on external professional teams who provide support to the school or
by other teachers at the school (e.g., Participant 8: ‘Sometimes I doubt whether what I do is
right or not, you know. I like sharing this feeling and that the other person can do so as
well . . . You may feel rather alone if you don’t have such complicity’). Regarding external
professionals, teachers felt positively supported by professionals who provide advice and
share knowledge and experiences, and further valued when emotional support was
provided by closer colleagues, on a professional level and within a friendly/social relation­
ship between teachers. Teachers reported team/collaborative work amongst professionals
and paraprofessionals as a crucial means to manage CBs (e.g., Participant 1: Colleagues are
very important to me. The colleague you have in the classroom. The other professional. In my
opinion, this is the most important thing. If you get along with your colleague, if you have
similar working methods and both want to innovate and do new things . . . that’s it! You have
it all!”). They stressed that all professionals should be able to recognise the behaviours and
the strategies to be used either to prevent or respond to behaviours and outlined the
importance of following the same steps/directions when addressing such behaviours.
Participants in both settings further acknowledged that to positively answer children’s CB,
a closer collaboration with children’s families was necessary. In this sense, support from the
student’s family emerged as a critical support when managing CB. Families’ understanding
of the behaviour and coherent expectations of children’s abilities were identified as
crucial factors when working with these children. Finally, we address support from other
classroom students. Participants from mainstream schools identified the following as
crucial and helpful: Peers without disabilities should be able to understand their classmate
with ASD to be able to manage and understand CBs as they occur.

School Management
Teachers also highlighted school management as positive influencers of their task when
managing these behaviours. One of the recurrent supports identified by teachers from
special schools was the leadership team, because they play a critical role in listening,
understanding, and respecting teachers’ needs and their teaching methods. Two other
supports emerged: resource management and support for other professionals. Regarding
resource management, when exploring how organisational supports contributed to tea­
chers’ tasks, participants working in special schools affirmed that working in a more
positive school/class climate and having two teachers in the classroom in both settings
helps address the student’s behaviour (e.g., Participant 8: ‘We really try to have two
8 D. SIMÓ PINATELLA ET AL.

teachers in each class group. Because when there is occurrence of a challenging behaviour
that is difficult to anticipate and to redirect, one of us manages the behaviour and the other
one stays with the group’). By contrast, when considering supports from other professionals,
participants from both settings experienced that well-trained undergraduate students
can be a significant support in the response to behavioural needs.

Barriers
Three subthemes emerged as events or situations that hinder teachers’ management of
CB: its misunderstanding, relationships, and the school administration.

Behaviour Misunderstanding
Insufficient knowledge to address students’ needs and limited training at the college/uni­
versity level were perceived as a critical barrier. A deeper knowledge of behaviours, their
functions, and the management of these behaviours is necessary to address the beha­
vioural needs of students with ASD. Teachers said that undergraduate programs should
delve into understanding the behaviour of children with ASD and school or class manage­
ment of these behaviours (e.g., Participant 9: ‘I think that the psychology content that is
taught during the education studies really leaves a lot to be desired’). Furthermore, this
training should provide a theoretical framework and an array of strategies to implement
during undergraduate programmes; notably, this content is currently only available in
graduate courses. Further, the absence of feedback and absence of practical examples of
CB management from colleagues outside their schools may also negatively impact
teacher confidence in addressing CBs.

Relationships
Relationships amongst teachers, children, their families, and other external entities/profes­
sionals can become a significant barrier. The absence of a common understanding of the
behaviour amongst teachers or little communication with professionals from external
organisations hinders the provision of consistent, sustainable interventions to address
children’s behaviour, as highlighted by participants from both settings. Additionally, all
participants identified that low levels of communication with student’s families negatively
affected their teaching tasks (e.g., Participant 10: ‘Sometimes families have a hard time
understanding that something that works so well here at school, such as a personalised
schedule, has to be implemented at home . . . some families claim they just can’t handle the
situation, so you give them the tools, but they don’t really believe it’ll work, so they don’t do
it.’). Finally, in mainstream schools, a significant barrier was other students’ negative
attitudes towards students with ASD and their challenging behaviour, which further
stigmatises these children and increased teachers’ stress.

School Administration
Three major aspects emerged as barriers: school and classroom organisation and a lack of
human and economic resources. Regarding school organisation, the school’s physical
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 9

spaces were inappropriate to manage children with behavioural needs. In this sense,
teachers from special schools emphasised that schools are usually organised based on
teachers’ and adults’ needs instead of focusing on children’s needs (e.g., schedules
organisation). Additionally, the amount of paperwork teachers might do also hinders
the ability to become proficient in addressing CBs because teachers have little to no time
to critically think about and improve their practices. Further, nonflexible leadership teams
acted as a critical obstacle in special education schools because they did not tend to
consider teachers’ opinions of how the school should be organised to address behavioural
needs.
Regarding classroom organisation, in both settings, nonstructured environments (e.g.,
the child has to wait for long periods of time) hindered behaviour management. Teachers
from special schools also pointed out that undergraduate students on internships some­
times impeded their teaching because they were insufficiently trained and had to be
instructed while teaching students and addressing CBs.
Finally, regarding the insufficient human and economic resources, participants affirmed
that the insufficient number of school personnel, insufficient funds to access helpful
technological devices, and insufficient economic resources of families indirectly affect
their instruction (e.g., Participant 4: ‘Sometimes the classroom we must work in doesn’t help
either . . . And you think, OMG this is the worst classroom ever! Then you try to solve physical
barriers. The school is very old, there are barriers everywhere, sloping floors, etc.’).

Potential Supports
To improve teachers’ management of CBs, they identified three main areas where more
resources and time should be invested: CB specialisation, leadership teams, and shared
language and perceptions.

Challenging Behaviour Specialisation

Participants from both settings declared that training and expertise in behaviour manage­
ment should be mandatory for all school personnel. They suggested that a master’s
degree focused on behaviour management and autism would enhance their knowledge
and confidence in managing difficult situations. They also suggested that they would
appreciate being involved in more behaviour intervention experiences, such as visiting
other schools to learn about their organisation and how they adjust strategies to specific
behavioural needs, in other words, a network of schools to share experiences amongst
professionals. Teachers from special schools also endorsed that intervention strategies
directed to address behaviours must be sustainable and embedded in their daily routines
as much as possible. Finally, participants underlined the need to incorporate evidence-
based practices into their everyday teaching tasks (e.g., Participant 8: ‘I think it’s important
to try to make it more . . . . to give it sort of a research touch to our day-to-day work’).

Leadership Team
Two major potential supports emerged: human and spaces management and scheduling
moments to promote teachers’ well-being. Teachers asked for more efforts from school
10 D. SIMÓ PINATELLA ET AL.

leaders to better address children’s needs. They specifically suggested that schools’
headmasters and leadership teams should endeavour to reduce student-to-teacher ratios
both in special and mainstream schools and to provide the teachers’ team with profes­
sionals specifically trained in behaviour management of children with ASD. Leadership
teams should also consider having the same teacher with the same group for more than
one academic year (e.g., Participant 6: ‘Having the same teacher for more than one year
would be great for these students . . ., if the relation teacher-student is positive, it would be
fantastic for them’).

Shared Language and Perceptions

Professionals from mainstream and special schools agreed on the need to share and use
a common language amongst teachers, parents, and other educational agents for stu­
dents’ CBs and needs. They advocated for improving communication with families to
build a common perspective and understanding of the behaviours and create a shared
management of behaviours across contexts. Participants from mainstream schools also
stressed that the information provided by the psychologist should be clearer and more
understandable, and again they asked for a common language and clear examples of the
information provided (e.g., Participant 9: ‘Some psychologists know how to translate
concepts into school’s real-life situations, while others have a strong theoretical approach
and you leave wondering . . . “what were they talking about?” If teachers, psychologists, and
everyone else involved spoke the same language, work would be a lot easier’).

Discussion
This study intended to explore teachers’ perceptions of behaviour management of
children with ASD. Further, we identified the supports that teachers have in school
settings, such as knowledge acquisition and experience in behaviour management.
Receiving support from colleagues, families, and other students, along with organisa­
tional supports might facilitate behaviour management and collaborative work amongst
teachers and with external entities and families. Teachers also encountered hindrances
when managing students with ASD behaviours because they must manage negative
attitudes from other students. The insufficient collaboration with families or external
entities and school and classroom organisation also hindered their task. Their lack of
training and practical examples added to their behavioural misunderstanding and
impeded the correct management of such behaviours. Participants also identified poten­
tial supports that might help provide better responses to their students’ behavioural
needs. Specifically, they said that further knowledge, expertise, and being able to build
a shared language and similar perceptions amongst all the professionals and families
working with the child would certainly result in better management of CBs. Additionally,
organisational issues played a fundamental role in shaping the environment, that is, in the
classroom and different school settings, but also in adapting schedules and functioning to
students with ASD and their behavioural needs. Furthermore, teachers would benefit
from having moments throughout their working day to promote their emotional well-
being and to reflect on their practices.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 11

Although this study provided clues regarding what teachers need to address students
with ASD behaviours and how leaders and stakeholders should rethink their practices and
support allocations to facilitate teachers’ work, it has limitations that must be considered
when interpreting the results. Following the quality guidelines for qualitative research, we
provided a description of the participants’ context to aid the reader in judging the range
of persons and situations to which the findings might be relevant (Elliot, Fischer, & Rennie,
1999). However, the degree to which some factors might contribute to the experience of
the group of teachers cannot be determined. In this sense, further research should
consider the influence of other factors, such as participants’ background in terms of
years of experience, their additional training, and specific children’s characteristics (e.g.,
health conditions or delays in communication and language skills). Additionally, the
inclusion of different data sources in the qualitative analysis (e.g., collected observations
or diaries of participants) may strengthen the conclusions derived from this research and
thus the understanding of the phenomena under study.
Participants of segregated and mainstream settings have agreed to the vast majority of
themes, despite some singularities closely related to the environment in which they work.
For example, in mainstream settings, teachers have highlighted the facilitating or thwart­
ing role of peers without disabilities in managing students with ASD behaviours. By
contrast, and according to other studies (i.e., Corkum et al., 2014; Segall & Campbell,
2012), in both settings, participants have recognised the lack of training as impeding their
task. The formal qualification for a Spanish teacher to work in the field of special education
is a degree in general education, which includes few subjects about attending to students’
needs, for example, students with intellectual disability or ASD. Training should thus focus
on understanding the behaviour from a functional perspective rather than merely provid­
ing strategies to implement interventions (Dunlap & Kern, 2018). Furthermore, and in
addition to the need for formal training in degree and master’s courses, there is an urgent
need to establish learning networks where teachers can learn from other colleagues and
experts, using natural and contextual resources. Further research must address this
challenge by building sustainable networks of collaboration and mutual benefit (e.g.,
between segregated and mainstream settings) and contributing to building a common
work framework and a shared language. Those shared perceptions and framework are as
necessary amongst professionals as between professionals and families. Further research
should explore means for families to closely collaborate with schools (McConachie et al.,
2018; Syriopoulou-Delli, Cassimos, & Polychronopoulou, 2016) to create consistent con­
texts of behaviour management.
When exploring professionals’ needs in educational settings, the following must also
be considered: availability of supports and services, how they are implemented, and if
they are significant to professionals, that is, if they answer their needs. Emerging policies
and initiatives must then be framed within an organisational system that aims to provide
sustainable help to professionals and support to all students. As identified in this study,
teachers encounter barriers and supports amongst the three tiers – at a school level, at the
classroom level, and with particular students with pervasive support needs. To sustainably
address a student with ASD behavioural needs in Tier 3, these needs must have already
been addressed in Tiers 1 and 2 (Lane et al., 2007). This sequence is particularly relevant
because of the finding that organisational supports at the school and classroom levels
play a key role in facilitating or hindering teachers’ tasks, and further stresses the
12 D. SIMÓ PINATELLA ET AL.

relevance of competent, flexible leadership teams that allocate supports to respond to all
students’ needs and guarantee extraordinary supports in Tiers 2 and 3. Within this
framework, empirically evidence-based practices should then be implemented in the
continuum of supports, that is, to all levels of prevention/intervention (Freeman, Sugai,
Simonsen, & Everett, 2017). However, a challenge for further research is to find sustainable
methods to embed these practices in everyday school routines.
An added value of this study is that reporting professionals’ perspectives of supports,
barriers, and potential supports may contribute to facilitating teachers’ response to
children with ASD behavioural needs. For this main reason, educational policies should
clearly align with professionals, schools, and children’s existing needs to answer them in
mainstream or segregated settings. One way could be promoting a multitiered framework
in school systems to align supports with the needs of the school. As this study’s results
emphasise, professionals’ perspectives are strong indicators both of their needs and of the
extent to which educational policies are being implemented (Syriopoulou-Delli et al.,
2012) and must then be further considered by policymakers and stakeholders.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
David Simó-Pinatella http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3745-7314
Cristina Günther-Bel http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9409-9328
Cristina Mumbardó-Adam http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2295-9891

References
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Bölte, S. (2014). The power of words: Is qualitative research as important as quantitative research in
the study of autism? Autism, 18(3), 67–68.
Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in
special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brunsting, N. C., Sreckovic, M. A., & Lane, K. L. (2014). Special education teacher burnout: A synthesis
of research from 1979 to 2013. Education & Treatment of Children, 37(4), 681–711.
Butrimaviciute, R., & Grieve, A. (2014). Carers’ experiences of being exposed to challenging beha­
viour in services for autism spectrum disorders. Autism, 18(8), 882–890.
Corkum, P., Bryson, S. E., Smith, I. M., Giffin, C., Hume, K., & Power, A. (2014). Professional develop­
ment needs for educators working with children with autism spectrum disorders in inclusive
school environments. Exceptionality Education International, 24(1), 33–47.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dunlap, G., & Kern, L. (2018). Perspectives on functional (behavioral) assessment. Behavioral
Disorders, 43(2), 316–321.
Duran, D., Giné, C., & Marchesi, A. (2010). Guia per a l’anàlisi, la reflexió i la valoració de pràctiques
inclusives. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya, Department d’Educació.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 13

Elliot, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative
research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(3),
215–229.
Freeman, J., Sugai, G., Simonsen, B., & Everett, S. (2017). MTSS coaching: Bridging knowing to doing.
Theory into Practice, 56(1), 29–37.
Hastings, R. P., & Brown, T. (2002). Behavior problems of children with autism, parental self-efficacy,
and mental health. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107(3), 222–232.
Hayes, J. A., Casey, L. B., Williamson, R., Black, T., & Winsor, D. (2013). Educators’ readiness to teach
children with autism spectrum disorder in an inclusive classroom. The Researcher, 25, 67–78.
Jang, J., Dixon, D. R., Tarbox, J., & Granpeesheh, D. (2011). Symptom severity and challenging
behavior in children with ASD. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(3), 1028–1032.
Kanne, S. M., & Mazurek, M. O. (2011). Aggression in children and adolescents with ASD: Prevalence
and risk factors. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(7), 926–937.
Lane, K. L., Rogers, L. A., Parks, R. J., Weisenbach, J. L., Mau, A. C., Merwin, M. T., & Bergman, W. A.
(2007). Function-based interventions for students who are nonresponsive to primary and sec­
ondary prevention efforts: Illustrations at the elementary and middle school levels. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(3), 169–183.
Lecavalier, L., Leone, S., & Wiltz, J. (2006). The impact of behaviour problems on caregiver stress in
young people with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50(3),
172–183.
Lindsay, S., Proulx, M., Scott, H., & Thomson, N. (2014). Exploring teacher’s strategies for including
children with autism spectrum disorder in mainstream classrooms. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 18(2), 101–122.
McConachie, H., Livingstone, N., Morris, C., Beresford, B., Le Couteur, A., Gringras, P., . . . Parr, J. R.
(2018). Parents suggest which indicators of progress and outcomes should be measured in young
children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(4),
1041–1051.
McGillicuddy, S., & O’Donnell, G. M. (2014). Teaching students with autism spectrum disorder in
mainstream post-primary schools in the Republic of Ireland. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 18(4), 323–344.
McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support. New-York: Guilford.
McTiernan, A., Leader, G., Healy, O., & Mannion, A. (2011). Analysis of risk factors and early predictors
of challenging behavior for children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum
Disorders, 5(3), 1215–1222.
Murphy, O., Healy, O., & Leader, G. (2009). Risk factors for challenging behaviors among 157
children with autism spectrum disorder in Ireland. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(2),
474–482.
Ögülmüs, K., & Vuran, S. (2016). Schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and support practices:
review of studies in the “Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions”. Educational Sciences: Theory
and Practice, 16(5), 1693–1710.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rae, H., Murray, G., & McKenzie, K. (2011). Teaching staff knowledge, attributions and confidence in
relation to working with children with an intellectual disability and challenging behaviour. British
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(4), 295–301.
Roberts, J., & Simpson, K. (2016). A review of research into stakeholder perspectives on inclusion of
students with autism in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(10),
1084–1096.
Rojahn, J., Matson, J. L., Lott, D., Esbensen, A. J., & Smalls, Y. (2001). The behavior problems inventory:
An instrument for the assessment of self-injury, stereotyped behavior and aggression/destruction
in individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 31
(6), 577–588.
Segall, M. J., & Campbell, J. M. (2012). Factors relating to education professionals’ classroom
practices for the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism
Spectrum Disorders, 6(3), 1156–1167.
14 D. SIMÓ PINATELLA ET AL.

Simó-Pinatella, D., Mumbardó-Adam, C., Lowe, K., Jones, E., Cortina, A., Alomar-Kurz, E., &
Rodríguez, C. O. (2017). Exploring youth’s problem behavior prevalence in educational settings:
Piloting the process. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 1–9. https://10.1007/s41252-017-
0042-4
Soto-Chodiman, R., Pooley, J. A., Cohen, L., & Taylor, M. F. (2012). Students with ASD in mainstream
primary education settings: Teacher’s experiences in western Australian classrooms. Australasian
Journal of Special Education, 36(2), 97–111.
Syriopoulou-Delli, C. K., Cassimos, D. C., & Polychronopoulou, S. A. (2016). Collaboration between
teachers and parents of children with ASD on issues of education. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 55, 330–345.
Syriopoulou-Delli, C. K., Cassimos, D. C., Tripsianis, G. I., & Polychronopoulou, S. A. (2012). Teachers’
perceptions regarding the management of children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(5), 755–768.
Wilkinson, S., Joffe, H., & Yardley, L. (2004). Qualitative data collection: Interviews and focus group. In
D. F. Marks & L. Yardley (Eds.), Research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 39–55).
London: SAGE publications.