The treatment acceptability construct is discussed in the context of Lundervold, Young, Bourland, and Jackson's (1991) attempt to assess it through use of the Geriatric Treatment Acceptability Survey (GTAS) and Attitudes toward Behavior Analysis Scale (ABAS). Consequences of employing standard descriptions of client, problem behavior, and treatment are examined, as is Lundervold et a1.k (1991) use of an "average individual rater-to-total group of raters" alpha coefficient. It is argued that the heuristic value of treatment acceptability research is enhanced with a broad definition of treatment acceptability and when client, problem behavior, and treatment descriptions are allowed to vary.
In their recent article, Lundervold, Young, Bourland, and Jackson (1991) provided a report on two attitudinal measures of behavioral treatment: the Geriatric Treatment Acceptability Survey (GTAS) (Bourland & Lundervold, 1989) and the Attitudes toward Behavior Analysis Scale (ABAS). Several issues worthy of further consideration arise from their article.
WHAT IS TREATMENT ACCEPTABILITY? Definition
Agreement on what constitutes the treatment acceptability construct must necessarily precede agreement on how to measure it. Yet there does not appear to be a consensus among researchers regarding exactly what constitutes treat- ment acceptability. A. E. Kazdin, who was largely responsible for stimulating recent interest in this construct, provided a definition:
Acceptability refers to the judgments about the treatment procedures by nonprofessionals, lay persons, clients, and other potential consumers of treatment
Requests for reprints should be sent to