|
| Further Applications and Extensions of Functional Communication Training |
| Saturday, May 29, 2004 |
| 4:00 PM–5:20 PM |
| Constitution A |
| Area: DDA; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: David P. Wacker (University of Iowa) |
| Discussant: Wayne W. Fisher (Marcus Institute) |
| Abstract: . |
| |
| Evaluation of Choice as an Antecedent Variable in Functional Communication Training |
| JAY W. HARDING (University of Iowa), David P. Wacker (University of Iowa), Wendy K. Berg (University of Iowa), Lisa C. Winborn-Kemmerer (University of Iowa), John F. Lee (University of Iowa), Eric Boelter (University of Iowa), Muska Ibrahimovic (University of Iowa) |
| Abstract: We evaluated the effects of choice as an antecedent variable during functional communication training. Participants were 7 children aged 2 to 5 years with developmental disabilities who displayed severe problem behavior (e.g., aggression, self-injury) maintained by negative reinforcement. All procedures were conducted in each child’s home with their mother serving as therapist. Inter-observer agreement for child behavior was assessed across 30% of sessions and averaged 97%. During Phase 1, functional analysis results showed that each of the children displayed escape-maintained problem behavior. During Phase 2, we compared a functional communication training (FCT) program with and without an antecedent choice-making component (FCT + Choice). Weekly to monthly treatment probes were conducted for an average of 7 months (range = 5 to 9 months) across participants. On average, the FCT program reduced problem behavior by 94% and the FCT + Choice program reduced problem behavior by 90% across participants. Overall results will be discussed with respect to their implications for the treatment of problem behavior. |
| |
| Assessment and Treatment of Problem Behavior Maintained by Interruption of Preferred Activities |
| JENNIFER LYNNE BRUZEK (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Louis P. Hagopian (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Lynn G. Bowman (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Heather Schonbachler (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Jessica G. Philips (Kennedy Krieger Institute) |
| Abstract: We assessed and treated the problem behavior of 4 individuals diagnosed with autism who had inconclusive or incomplete initial functional analysis results. Subsequent analyses, using procedures similar to Fisher et al. (1998), revealed that the interruption of preferred activities with requests occasioned problem behavior. A multi-component treatment involving demand fading, as well as functional communication training (FCT), noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), and extinction (EXT), was implemented to treat the aberrant behavior of all participants. A two-component multiple schedule was used to facilitate reinforcement schedule thinning based on the procedures described by Hanley et al. (2001). IOA was collected and was over 80%. The first component, reinforcement (R), of a two-component multiple schedule involved free access to preferred activities without interruptive demands and reinforcement for communication to access interaction with the therapist. During the second component, interruptive demand (ID), the therapist issued demands that interrupted engagement in preferred activities and provided reinforcement for compliance. Problem behavior was placed on extinction during both components. During schedule thinning, the duration of component R was gradually decreased while the duration of component ID was increased. For 2 participants, the addition of a punishment component was required to maintain low levels of problem behavior. |
| |
| Thinning Reinforcer Delivery during Differential Reinforcement Programs |
| ROBERT-RYAN S. PABICO (Marcus Institute), Wayne W. Fisher (Marcus Institute), Henry S. Roane (Marcus Institute), Michael E. Kelley (Marcus Institute), Joanna Lomas (Marcus Institute), Ashley C. Glover (Marcus Institute), Nathan Call (Marcus Institute) |
| Abstract: Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is an effective procedure for decreasing the occurrence of maladaptive behavior. Despite the general efficacy of DRA, these procedures may result in rates of reinforcement that are difficult for caregivers to implement. For example, some DRA procedures may be impractical in school settings in which reinforcer delivery disrupts ongoing educational activities. In the current investigation, we described two methods of thinning reinforcer delivery during DRA. In the first method, a multiple schedule procedure was used in which periods of extinction and reinforcement were alternated. In the second example, access to an alternative reinforcer was provided during the delay interval and the functional reinforcer was made available (via alternative responding) at the end of the delay interval. In both cases, reinforcer delivery was successfully thinned to once every 30 min or once every 15 min, respectively. Reliability data were collected on at least 33% of all sessions and averaged over 90% for both participants. Results are discussed in terms of developing reinforcement-based interventions that can be easily transferred to naturalistic settings. |
|
| |