Association for Behavior Analysis International

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (i.e., DRA) combines the reinforcement of prosocial behaviors and extinction of destructive behaviors. While highly effective, DRA alone may be insufficient for producing clinically significant reductions in destructive behavior (i.e., behavior is treatment resistant, extinction cannot be implemented). Thus, clinicians must address these barriers by incorporating additional treatment components to enhance efficacy. This symposium will consist of four presentations followed by comments from Dr. Joanna Lomas Mevers. First, Kimberly Ford will present on a comparison of the efficiency and preference for interventions with and without physical guidance for treating escape-maintained problem behavior. Next, Katherine Brown will present on the development and validation of a reinforcer dimension sensitivity assessment to inform DRA without extinction procedures. Third, Andrew Sodawasser will present data from a clinical review of clients who displayed treatment resistant problem behavior and participated in a stimulus avoidance assessment. Last, Alexandra Hardee will discuss the utility of the stimulus avoidance assessment and implications for future practice.

Physical guidance is a common intervention component; however, in some situations, physical guidance may be contraindicated (e.g., client of larger stature, hands-off school policy, caregiver physical limitations, history of physical abuse). In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of a multiple opportunity probe (MOP) as an alternative to physical guidance (PG) to teach chained tasks to 4 school-aged participants (range, 5-18) with autism spectrum disorder who engaged in escape-maintained destructive behavior. An adapted-alternating design was used to teach three equally matched arbitrary tasks to evaluate the effectiveness of the MOP as an alternative instructional method. Data were collected on the percentage of steps completed independently, rate of destructive behavior, and the social validity (i.e., participant and therapist preference of the two instructional methods). All participants mastered tasks more efficiently with the MOP and displayed lower rates of problem behavior with the MOP. The majority of participants demonstrated preference for the MOP. Factors influencing participant preference will be discussed. Social validity of incorporating participant and therapist instructional preferences will also be discussed. This study provides evidence of an effective alternative when physical guidance is contraindicated that may provide a safer and socially valid way to teach chained tasks.