|Advancements in Organizational Behavior Management Assessment and Intervention
|Saturday, May 25, 2019
|3:00 PM–3:50 PM
|Hyatt Regency East, Concourse Level, Michigan 1 A-C
|Area: OBM; Domain: Translational
|Chair: Abigail Blackman (University of Kansas)
|CE Instructor: Abigail Blackman, M.S.
|Abstract: This symposium includes three talks that span basic to applied experimental evaluations of assessments and interventions to foster desired employee behavior. Novak will share findings of an experiment that evaluated the predictive validity of three preference assessment formats for identifying reinforcers for college students completing a computerized work task. The remaining two presentations will summarize findings from applications of organizational behavior management assessments and interventions. Cruz will describe results of an experiment that examined the utility of the Performance Diagnostic Checklist – Safety to identify interventions to improve appropriate employee hand washing within a human service setting. Finally, Wine will present a series of experiments that assessed reinforcement delay, with embedded probabilities, on employee filing behavior.
|Instruction Level: Intermediate
|Keyword(s): preference assessment, reinforcement delay, reinforcer assessment, safety
|Target Audience: Behavior analysts, individuals working within the field of organizational behavior management
|A Translational Evaluation of Preference Assessment Formats for Employees
|MATTHEW NOVAK (University of Kansas), Florence D. DiGennaro Reed (University of Kansas)
|Abstract: We evaluated the predictive validity of three formats for identifying reinforcers for completing an experimental work task by undergraduate student participants. The computerized task involved a series of transcription and match-to-sample activities. The first format was a Likert-type survey that asked participants how much work they would be willing to do to gain access to each stimulus. The second format asked participants to rank the stimuli according to how much work they would do to earn each stimulus. The third format was a hypothetical work task that asked participants whether they would be willing to complete a given number of work tasks to gain each stimulus. The presented number advanced in a progressive fashion until reaching a break point for each stimulus. Using a multielement design we then assessed the reinforcing efficacy of the stimuli at a low, fixed response requirement. Finally, participants had the opportunity to work for each stimulus under a progressive ratio schedule in a multielement design. Although data collection is ongoing, pilot data indicate high correspondence between each preference assessment format and high correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer assessment work rates.
Further Evaluation of the Performance Diagnostic Checklist-Safety
|NELMAR JACINTO CRUZ (Florida Institute of Technology), David A. Wilder (Florida Institute of Technology), Curtis Phillabaum (Florida Institute of Technology), Rachel Thomas (Florida Institute of Technology )
We evaluated the utility of the Performance Diagnostic Checklist- Saftey (PDC-Safety) (Martinez-Onstott, Wilder, & Sigurdsson, 2016) by comparing the effectiveness of a PDC-Safety indicated intervention with a PDC-Safety non-indicated intervention. The interventions targeted participants’ hand washing behavior at a clinic serving children with intellectual disabilities. Failure to wash hands at appropriate times could pose health risks to both behavior technicians and clients, so efforts should be made to increase the likelihood of hand washing. Based on the results of the PDC-Safety, a lack of antecedents was the variable contributing to unsafe performance. The indicated intervention, which consisted of a prompt, was effective to increases safe performance, although two of three participants required additional intervention components. The non-indicated intervention, which consisted of increased access to materials, was ineffective. Results are discussed in terms of the utility of the tool to identify effective interventions to increase safe performance in a variety of settings.
|An Examination of Reward Delay and Probability in Employees
|BYRON J. WINE (The Faison Center & Florida Institute of Technology), Ting Bentley (The Faison Center), Adam Thornton Brewer (Florida Institute of Technology)
|Abstract: The effects of delay to delivery of earned rewards were evaluated in program support employees. During study 1, an immediate reward delivery condition was implemented. During study 2, employees were exposed to increasing delays to reward delivery. Employees continued to respond at high levels up to a 32-day delay. Study 3 held the 32-day delay constant but also evaluated three different probabilities of receiving the rewards: 1.0, .5, and .1. Employees continued to respond during delays but decreased responding when the probability of receiving the rewards decreased.