|
| Functional Assessment of Problem Behavior: Refining Analyses through the Manipulation of Response and Reinforcement Variables |
| Sunday, May 30, 2004 |
| 1:30 PM–2:50 PM |
| Back Bay A |
| Area: DDA; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Louis P. Hagopian (Kennedy Krieger Institute) |
| Abstract: Learning Objectives
Participants will gain knowledge on linking functional assessment results to innovations in treatments that are individually tailored to those results.
Participants will gain knowledge regarding the potential impact of a variety of basic principles (e.g., discrepancies in reinforcer magnitude, hierarchical response classes) on functional analysis outcomes.
Participants will gain knowledge regarding procedural variations that may serve to enhance the utility of functional analysis in the identification of controlling variables. |
| |
| The Effects of Reinforcement Magnitude on Functional Analysis Outcomes |
| VALERIE M. VOLKERT (Louisiana State University), Dorothea C. Lerman (Louisiana State University) |
| Abstract: Certain parameters of reinforcement (e.g., schedule, quality, or magnitude of the reinforcer) may influence the outcomes of functional analyses. However, few studies have evaluated the effects of reinforcement magnitude on problem behavior even though basic findings indicate that this parameter may alter the likelihood of obtaining clear functional analysis results. In fact, reinforcement magnitude has varied widely and appeared to be selected arbitrarily in most studies on functional analysis. In this study, three children with developmental disabilities who engaged in severe problem behavior were exposed to three separate functional analyses: one with a small (3-s) reinforcement magnitude, one with a medium (20-s) reinforcement magnitude, and one with a large (120-s) reinforcement magnitude. For two participants, outcomes of the functional analyses were similar across all magnitudes. For the third participant, higher levels of escape-maintained behavior occurred under the small reinforcement magnitude. These results indicate that reinforcement magnitude may not influence the results of functional analyses and that a wide range of magnitudes may be acceptable to use. However, the function of problem behavior may clearer under certain magnitudes. |
| |
| The Identification of Response-Class Hierachies During Functional Analysis |
| DAVID E. KUHN (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Louis P. Hagopian (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Stephanie A.C. Kuhn (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Heather Jennett (Kennedy Krieger Institute) |
| Abstract: The experimental analysis of behavior, relies upon the occurrence of behavior. That is, in order for clinicians to analyze behavior it is essential that he/she observe the behavior. Experimental analyses of behavior are often discontinued or inconclusive because the target behavior is not observed. Clinicians may alter the dimensions of the reinforcement or adjust the establishing operation in an attempt to occasion behavior. It is possible, and in some cases evident, that the inconclusive assessment results are because the target behaviors are members of a response-class hierarchy, and reinforcing behaviors lower on the hierarchy (LH) may preclude the occurrence of higher order behaviors (HH). The current study describes 4 participants with developmental disabilities for whom initial functional analysis results did not accurately represent the behaviors reported to be of most concern by caregivers. For these individuals, extinction procedures were applied to the LH behaviors to occasion the target HH behaviors. Sessions were conducted in the experimental condition associated with the highest levels of LH behavior. Results, across participants, suggested that when LH behavior did not result in the desired consequence (i.e., extinction), higher intensity HH behaviors were observed. Assessment and treatment implications are discussed. |
| |
| Indirect Treatment of Socially Mediated Self-injury via Interruption of Automatically Reinforced Self-restraint |
| HENRY S. ROANE (Marcus Institute), Wayne W. Fisher (Marcus Institute), Nathan Call (Marcus Institute), Alyson N. Hovanetz (Marcus Institute), Katharine Gutshall (Kennedy Krieger Institute) |
| Abstract: Self-restraint has been described as preference for self-confinement of responding over self-injurious behavior (SIB). Previous research has evaluated the functional relationship between self-restraint and SIB. In general, these results have demonstrated that self-restraint and SIB may (a) belong to the same response class, (b) be functionally independent of one another, or (c) self-restraint may function as reinforcement for SIB. In the current investigation, we evaluated the relationship between self-restraint and SIB in a young woman with profound mental retardation. Results of separate functional analysis suggested that the two responses were maintained by separate reinforcement contingencies. Conditional probabilities were then developed based on the occurrence of SIB following interruption of self-restraint. These data suggested that SIB was maintained by social reinforcement in the form of contingent access to automatically reinforced self-restraint. Based on this relation, we hypothesized that interruption of the reinforcement contingency for self-restraint would produce a decrease in SIB. During treatment, self-restraint was interrupted and a corresponding 90% reduction in SIB was observed. These results suggest a further functional relationship between the occurrence of SIB and self-restraint. |
| |
| An Evaluation of Latency as the Index of Problem Behavior During Functional Analysis |
| JESSICA L. THOMASON (University of Florida), Brian A. Iwata (University of Florida), Pamela L. Neidert (University of Florida) |
| Abstract: In research on the functional analysis of problem behavior, the dependent variable during assessment and treatment has consisted of rate, duration, or percentage of intervals of responding, all of which are based on repeated occurrences of behavior. Occasionally, however, these measures may be difficult to use when the target behavior poses high risk or when its occurrence terminates a session (as in running away). We evaluated the extent to which response latency might be used as the index of behavior during assessment. Study 1 consisted of a retrospective analysis in which data from functional analyses were compared when graphed as session values (responses per minute) and as the latency to the first response in a session. In Study 2, results from pairs of independent functional analyses were compared. The assessment procedures were identical. However, sessions in the first functional analysis were terminated following the first occurrence of the target behavior, whereas sessions in the second functional analysis lasted for 10 min each. Results of the two analyses were compared, and function was determined via visual analysis. Results are discussed in terms of implications for research and clinical practice for evaluating problem behavior. Reliability assessment was conducted for all dependent measures using typical recording and calculation techniques. |
|
| |