|
| The Use of Stimulus Control to Enhance Intervention Efficacy |
| Monday, May 31, 2004 |
| 10:30 AM–11:50 AM |
| Constitution A |
| Area: DDA/EAB; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Cynthia M. Anderson (West Virginia University) |
| Discussant: Brian A. Iwata (University of Florida) |
| Abstract: Learning Objectives
Explain how resistance to extinction may enhance the generality of an intervention
State how stimulus control might be used to decrease the need for punishment
Identify at least two areas for future research in the area of stimulus control |
| |
| Assessing Stimulus Control: Behavioral Maintenance under Conditions of Extinction |
| PAMELA L. NEIDERT (University of Florida), Brian A. Iwata (University of Florida), Leah Koehler (University of Florida), Natalie Rolider (University of Florida), David M. Wilson (University of Florida) |
| Abstract: Because resistance to extinction (EXT) may be a desirable or undesirable outcome in both research and clinical practice, it is important to identify the conditions under which responding maintains when it is no longer reinforced. This study examined the necessary and sufficient conditions for maintaining stimulus control during extinction by manipulating three general stimulus categories: reinforcer presence, instructional prompts, and correlated stimuli (therapist and setting). Six participants with developmental disabilities were taught a repetitive, vocational response. In the first assessment, they were exposed to three test EXT conditions, each of which involved the presence of one stimulus characteristic from the training environment (while the other 2 stimulus characteristics differed). Response maintenance during any of the EXT conditions suggested that the stimulus present was sufficient to exert stimulus control. In the second assessment, the sufficient stimulus characteristic(s) identified in the first assessment were systematically eliminated (while the other two stimulus characteristics were present). Conditions in which responding extinguished suggested that the stimulus that was absent was necessary for behavioral maintenance. Conversely, if responding maintained, that stimulus was not necessary because the presence of the other two stimuli compensated for the absence of the sufficient stimulus. Three general patterns of results were observed and are discussed in terms of methodological and applied implications. |
| |
| Establishing Control of Self-Stimulatory Responding by an Antecedent Stimulus Using Punishment |
| SHANNON S. HAAG (West Virginia University), Cynthia M. Anderson (West Virginia University), Dean C. Williams (University of Kansas), Kathryn Saunders (University of Kansas) |
| Abstract: Few studies have shown that the use of punishment can bring responding under antecedent stimulus control. (cf. O’Donnell, Crosbie, Williams & Saunders, 2000). The purpose of this experiment was to determine if self-stimulatory responding could be brought under antecedent stimulus control using punishment, and, if so, whether participants would request the stimulus correlated with nonpunishment. Three individuals with mental retardation participated. By examining both response rates and response latencies, it was determined that antecedent stimulus control developed with each participant. Additionally, two participants acquired and maintained a mand resulting in access to the stimulus conditions correlated with nonpunishment. The results contribute to the literature by demonstrating that it is possible to obtain antecedent control using punishment procedures. Such results are useful in the management of nonharmful self stimulation insofar that such responding can be controlled by environmental antecedents and thus prevented in situations where it is inappropriate. |
| |
| The Effects of a Warning Stimulus on Punishment Fading |
| HEATHER SCHONBACHLER (Kennedy Krieger Institute), SungWoo Kahng (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Patricia F. Kurtz (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Jennifer N. Fritz (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Richard A. Goysovich (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Louis P. Hagopian (Kennedy Krieger Institute) |
| Abstract: The advent of functional analysis technology in the assessment of severe problem behaviors may have resulted in the decreased used of punishment-based intervention. Nevertheless, the occasional failure of reinforcement-based interventions alone may necessitate the use of punishment-based interventions. To provide the least restrictive treatment possible, it may be possible to fade the use of punishment. The current study evaluated the efficacy of using a conditioned punisher (i.e., warning stimulus) to decrease the need to implement a physical time out procedure. Participants included three children, ages 7, 9, and 12, diagnosed with mental retardation and who had been admitted to an inpatient unit for the treatment of aggressive and disruptive behaviors. Punishment fading was conducted to decrease the use of the punishment procedure by providing a warning stimulus contingent on the first occurrence of a target behavior. The warning stimulus was repeatedly paired with the punishment procedure so that the warning stimulus would eventually function as a conditioned punisher. Once pairing sessions were completed, fading sessions were conducted to determine if the child’s problem behavior would remain at or below a 90% reduction from baseline. Results suggested that this method of punishment fading was effective in maintaining low levels of problem behavior and a decreased need for a punishment procedure for all participants. However, the effects did not maintain over time for one participant. |
|
| |