|
| Manipulating Response and Reinforcement Parameters in the Treatment of Problem Behavior |
| Tuesday, June 1, 2004 |
| 12:00 PM–1:20 PM |
| Constitution B |
| Area: DDA/CBM; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Iser Guillermo DeLeon (Kennedy Krieger Institute) |
| Abstract: Learning Objectives
Participants will gain knowledge on linking functional assessment results to innovations in treatments that are individually tailored based on those results.
Participants will gain knowledge regarding variables that influence response allocation in multi-operant environments in applied settings.
Participants will learn how basic principles and tenets of behavior analysis (e.g., choice responding, schedule control, stimulus control, extinction) and their variants can be manipulated towards the enhancement of behavioral treatments for problem behavior. |
| |
| Treatment of Escape Maintained Behavior and Reinforcer Choice |
| TIFFANY KODAK (Louisiana State University), Dorothea C. Lerman (Louisiana State University), Mandy P. Pardon (Louisiana State University), Laura R. Addison (Louisiana State University), Nicole M. Trosclair-Lasserre (Louisiana State University), Valerie M. Volkert (Louisiana State University) |
| Abstract: Previous research has shown that preference for reinforcers may change as the schedule of reinforcement is thinned during treatment. In DeLeon, Neidert, Anders, and Rodriguez-Catter (2001), a child with escape-maintained behavior chose between an arbitrary reinforcer (i.e., food) and a functional reinforcer (i.e., break) for working on tasks. The arbitrary reinforcer was chosen consistently until the work requirement was increased to ten tasks, at which point treatment effects became inconsistent and choice became variable. To extend these findings, the current investigation examined the relationship between choice, reinforcement schedules, and other parameters of reinforcement with two children whose problem behavior was maintained by multiple social consequences (i.e., both positive and negative reinforcement). In the first phase, compliance with either a preferred or nonpreferred task led to a choice between a break or an edible across increasing ratios of reinforcement. Interobserver agreement, calculated for at least 25% of sessions, exceeded 85%. Results showed that reinforcer choice was relatively insensitive to reinforcement schedule. In subsequent phases, choice was evaluated while manipulating other parameters of reinforcement, including preference for the edible and the presence of positive reinforcers during the break. Results showed that manipulating aspects of the break led to changes in reinforcer choice. |
| |
| Examination of Reinforcement Parameters in the Assessment and Treatment of Attention Maintained SIB |
| CHRISTOPHER J. PERRIN (Bancroft NeuroHealth), April S. Worsdell (Bancroft NeuroHealth) |
| Abstract: This study examined reinforcement magnitude and quality during the assessment and treatment of a young girl’s SIB. Initial analyses indicated that SIB was maintained by positive reinforcement in the form of physical attention, rather than verbal attention. Next, the participant was taught two FCT responses (a vocalization and a picture card exchange), and when both responses were available, she showed a preference for vocalizing. The first FCT assessment examined the effects of reinforcement magnitude by providing a short duration of attention for one FCT response and a longer duration of attention for the other. Results showed that the delivery of a larger reinforcement magnitude did not produce a change in FCT response allocation. In the second FCT assessment, the effects of reinforcement quality were evaluated by providing low quality attention for one FCT response and high quality attention for the other. Results showed that she exhibited the FCT response that produced the higher quality reinforcer. SIB remained low across both FCT assessments. Interobserver agreement averaged at least 80% during sessions. Collectively, these results suggest that it may be important to examine reinforcement parameters when developing behavior interventions. |
| |
| Acquisition, Efficacy, and Relative Response Strength of Selection- and Topography-Based Mands During FCT |
| LISA M. TOOLE (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Iser Guillermo DeLeon (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Cindy T. Terlonge (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Sherry L. Spencer (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Ingibjorg Sveinsdottir (University of Maryland, Baltimore County) |
| Abstract: Research has been conducted that compares selection-based (SB; e.g., picture exchange) and topography-based (TB; e.g., manual signs) verbal behavior in terms of ease of tact and intraverbal acquisition in individuals with developmental disabilities. However, findings on SB and TB responses have only rarely crossed over into the literature on functional communication training to reduce behavior problems. The purpose of the current investigation was to compare selection-based and topography-based mands in terms of ease of acquisition of mands for reinforcers that maintain problem behaviors; treatment effects (single-response FCT comparison) once both responses were trained; and relative response strength (i.e.., concurrent FCT) when both mand forms were concurrently functional. Five individuals with mental retardation and limited verbal skills participated. All five of the participants acquired the selection-based mand whereas only two acquired both SB and TB mands given a similar number of training sessions. For the two individuals who acquired both mand forms, both displaced problem behavior when only one response produced reinforcement. However, when both responses were concurrently functional, SB mands were emitted more consistently. Reliability data on communication were collected during all phases of the evaluation and averaged 80% or greater. |
| |
| Comparison of Maintaining Vs. Arbitrary Noncontingent Reinforcement Procedures Without Extinction |
| EILEEN M. ROSCOE (New England Center for Children), Nancy A. Perhot (New England Center for Children) |
| Abstract: Noncontingent escape has been found effective for decreasing problem behavior. However it is unclear whether this procedure is effective when implemented without extinction and whether it is as effective as NCR using the functional consequence. To this end, we compared the relative efficacy of NCR using the maintaining reinforcer with NCR using an arbitrary reinforcer for reducing the two participants’ problem behavior. After conducting a functional analysis indicating participants’ problem behavior was maintained by escape from tasks, we conducted an arbitrary reinforcer test to ensure that the arbitrary reinforcer did not maintain problem behavior. Following this, baseline and NCR phases were conducted using a reversal design. During the NCR phase, two conditions, NCR (using escape as a reinforcer) and NCR (using an edible as a reinforcer) were compared. Results for one participant indicated that extinction was necessary to reduce behavior to low levels and both types of NCR were equally effective. Results for the other participant indicated that NCR using the maintaining reinforcer reduced behavior to low levels in the absence of extinction, whereas NCR using an arbitrary reinforcer resulted in similar levels of problem behavior to that observed during baseline. |
|
| |