|
| Unique Adaptations to the Assessment and Treatment of Challenging Behavior |
| Saturday, May 24, 2025 |
| 10:00 AM–10:50 AM |
| Marriott Marquis, M4 Level, Independence D |
| Area: AUT/DDA; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Mary Llinas (University of South Florida) |
| Discussant: William H. Ahearn (New England Center for Children) |
| CE Instructor: Mary Llinas, Ph.D. |
| Abstract: Since the advent of the functional analysis and function-based treatment of challenging behavior, researchers have developed a variety of adaptations in both assessment and treatment. Some adaptations, such as noncontingent reinforcement, have been useful across a variety of responses and functional variables. Other adaptations are unique to responses or functional variables, such as identification of idiosyncratic variables related to uncommon topographies of challenging behavior, unique controlling variables including respondent stimuli, and variables relevant to the presentation of demands. In this symposium, four presentations will discuss recent adaptations to both assessment and treatment procedures. The first presentation will describe a recent review of the literature on noncontingent reinforcement. The second presentation will describe an analysis of adaptations to assessment to clarify the influence of operant and respondent variables on biting. The third presentation will describe an analysis of manipulating features of antecedent variables in the assessment of inappropriate sexual behavior. Finally, the fourth presentation will describe manipulations to instructional sequences and their effects on cooperation. |
| Instruction Level: Intermediate |
| Keyword(s): assessment, high-p sequence, noncontingent reinforcement, treatment |
| Target Audience: Individuals with experience in the assessment and treatment of severe challenging behavior. |
| |
| A Review of the Literature on the Term “Noncontingent Reinforcement" |
| MARY LLINAS (University of South Florida), Catia Cividini-Motta Cividini (University of South Florida) |
| Abstract: The term “Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR),” first introduced in 1962 (Appel & Hiss, 1962), originally described a control condition consisting of the delivery of “reinforcers” on a time-based schedule (fixed-time, variable-time, random-time). In 1993, NCR was implemented as a behavioral intervention that reduced problem behavior with minimal side effects (Vollmer et al., 1993). Due to its efficacy and ease of implementation, NCR quickly became a popular intervention and control condition in applied research (e.g., Phillips et al., 2017; Richman et al., 2015; Thompson & Iwata, 2005; Vollmer & Sloman, 2005). Despite the procedure being widely adopted, due to controversy surrounding the use of the term “NCR” (Poling & Normand, 1999), replacement terms (e.g., fixed-time, noncontingent escape) have been proposed. Nevertheless, “NCR” continues to be used across practice, academia, and research. This review examines trends in the use of the term “NCR” over time, the publication rate of “NCR” across behavior analytic journals, and explores the key events that correlate with shifts in the publication rate of “NCR.” Results of this review indicate that publication rate with “NCR” has increased across the years with most papers published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. |
| |
A Comparison of Medium Probability Versus High Probability Instructions to Increase Cooperation in the Context of the High Probability Instructional Sequence |
| FRANCHESCA IZQUIERDO (Florida Institute of Technology), David A. Wilder (Florida Institute of Technology), Christina Marie Sheppard (Florida Institute of Technology), Kira Elizabeth Flynn (Florida Institute of Technology) |
| Abstract: The high-probability instructional sequence has been shown to be effective to increase cooperation with low-probability requests. However, for some individuals, it may be difficult to identify high-probability instructions, and some high-probability instructions may become less likely to evoke cooperation over time. Thus, under some circumstances medium probability instructions, or instructions which may be less likely to evoke cooperation than high-probability instructions, may be useful to increase cooperation. In the current study, we compared medium probability instructions to high probability instructions to increase cooperation among three children with autism spectrum disorder. The results showed that for two participants, the medium probability instructions improved cooperation as much as the high-probability instructions. For a third participant, the medium probability instructions improved cooperation over baseline, but not to the level observed with the high-probability instructions. We will discuss the results in terms of the mechanisms responsible for the effects of the different instructional sequences. |
|
| |