Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Single-case Analysis of the Effects of Concurrent Schedules of Reinforcement on Problem Behavior, Requests for Breaks, and Work Choices Stephanie M. Peterson,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Single-case Analysis of the Effects of Concurrent Schedules of Reinforcement on Problem Behavior, Requests for Breaks, and Work Choices Stephanie M. Peterson,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Single-case Analysis of the Effects of Concurrent Schedules of Reinforcement on Problem Behavior, Requests for Breaks, and Work Choices Stephanie M. Peterson, Ph.D., BCBA Presentation for Institute of Education Sciences June, 2008

2 General Information  Institute of Education Sciences –Serious Behavior Disorders Competition –Goal 2: Develop a new intervention  Award #R324B  $ 515,384 over 3 years –August, July, 2009

3 A Big Thank You to My Research Staff  Project Coordinator –Jessica Frieder, M.A., BCBA  Graduate Research Assistants –Shawn Quigley –Shilo Smith –Carrie Brower-Breitweiser, M.A.  Volunteers –Pete Molino, M.A., BCBA –Heath Ivers –Stuart Mullins –Sally Huskinson

4 Functions of Problem Behavior  Socially-mediated Functions –Gain (positive reinforcement: get attention, tangibles) –Escape (negative reinforcement: get out of difficult tasks, nonpreferred activities)  Non-socially-mediated Functions –Gain (positive automatic reinforcement: get sensory stimulation) –Escape (negative automatic reinforcement: get out of sensory stimulation)

5 Escape-motivated Problem Behavior  Most common motivation for problem behavior in individuals with developmental disabilities (Derby et al., 1992; Iwata et al., 1994)

6 Potential Treatments for Escape- motivated Problem Behavior  Eliminate task demands altogether –Most obvious and direct treatment (Smith & Iwata, 1997) –Limits skill development  Functional communication training (FCT) –Teaches a new skill (communication) and effectively reduces problem behavior (Carr & Durand, 1985; Derby et al., 1997; Durand & Carr, 1991; Marcus & Vollmer, 1995) –Often results in escaping tasks altogether (Marcus & Vollmer, 1995)

7 Potential Treatments for Escape- motivated Problem Behavior  Englemann & Colvin (1985) –Responding to instructional requests is critical foundational-level skill for completing higher- level instructional tasks  Interventions are needed that teach individuals to complete instructional tasks rather than eliminating task demands

8 Potential Treatments for Escape- motivated Problem Behavior  Stimulus Fading/DRA –Initially decrease task demands and slowly increase them over time –Reinforcement (task breaks) provided for task completion –Extinction (withholding breaks) for problem behavior  Can be effective in decreasing problem behavior and increasing task compliance  Bursts of problem behavior often occur as task demands increase (Lalli, Casey, & Kates, 1995; Zarcone et al., 1994)

9 A New Intervention is Needed  Intervention that capitalizes on the strengths of –FCT: rapid and reliable decreases in problem behavior –Stimulus fading: encourages task completion  Intervention that ameliorates the negative effects of –FCT: allows continuous escape –Stimulus fading: requires the use of extinction due to extinction bursts

10 A New Intervention is Needed  Combine FCT and Stimulus Fading while simultaneously eliminating Extinction –First, teach communicative response –Reduce task demands –Slowly increase task demands while also allowing break requests –Problem behavior continues to produce reinforcement (task breaks)  This creates a three-choice context: Task compliance, break request, problem behavior

11 Choice Context MandComplete TaskProblem Behavior Prompt to complete a difficult task How can we bias responding in favor of task completion? How can we bias responding in favor of mands? How can we bias responding away from problem behavior? All produce reinforcement = break

12 Factors That Influence Choices  Schedule of reinforcement  Delay to reinforcement  Effort to obtain reinforcement  Quality of reinforcement

13 Research on Choice Making  Research on competing schedules of reinforcement as treatment for problem behavior –Peck et al. (1996) Higher quality reinforcement for communication responses effectively competed with lower quality reinforcement for problem behavior –Extensions by Piazza et al. (1997) and Harding et al. (1999) –Supports the use of choice making as part of treatment for escape-motivated problem behavior

14 Research on Choice Making  Most, if not all, research on competing schedules of reinforcement involves choices between two responses: –Two sets of math problems (Mace et al. 1994; Neef et al., 1992; Neef et al., 1994) –Communication responses vs. problem behavior (Horner & Day, 1991; Peck et al., 1996) –Work completion vs. problem behavior (Hoch et al., 2002; Lalli et al., 1999)

15 Research Question #1  When compliance to task requests, mands, and problem behavior are concurrently available response alternatives, will providing different reinforcement qualities for each response alternative bias responding in favor of the adaptive response alternatives?

16 Research Question #2  Given that various dimensions of reinforcement can be arranged to increase adaptive responding (e.g., task compliance, mands) over problem behavior, are there differential effects of stimulus fading when only 2 response options receive reinforcement (i.e., compliance and problem behavior) versus when 3 response options receive reinforcement (i.e., compliance, mands, and problem behavior)?

17 Research Sites/Participants  Research Sites –Three school districts in Idaho –One rural, high Hispanic population –Two “urban”  Participants –12-18 participants per year across the three research sites –K-6 grades; 6-12 years of age –Disabilities and chronic and significant problem behavior

18 Dependent Variables and Measurement  Choices (Event recording) –First behavior that occurs after a choice opportunity (i.e., “Time to work. What do you want to do?”) –Touch work or break card –Engage in problem behavior  Session Problem behavior (10-s interval) –Defined individually for each participant Aggression Noncompliance Destruction Self-injurious behavior  Task engagement (10-s interval) –Looking at, manipulating task materials –Looking at experimenter while giving instructions

19 Case Example: Damon  8 years old  Diagnosed with mental disability  Limited verbal abilities  Problem behaviors: leaving the task area, verbal refusals to complete work, destruction of materials (e.g., ripping paper, throwing pencils), aggression (e.g., hitting)

20 Preliminary Assessments  Functional Behavior Analysis –Interview –Observations of classroom routine –Experimental functional analysis –Escape must be at least one function of problem behavior

21

22 Preliminary Assessments  Functional Communication Training –Teach participants to touch a card to request a break –Participants must demonstrate 100% independence with break card touching and less than 10% problem behavior

23

24 Choice Analysis  Research Question #1  When compliance to task requests, mands, and problem behavior are concurrently available response alternatives, will providing different reinforcement qualities for each response alternative bias responding in favor of the adaptive response alternatives?

25 Choice Analysis MandComplete TaskProblem Behavior Medium Quality/Duration (30 s) Break Highest Quality/Duration (1 min) Break Lowest Quality/Duration (10 s) Break Prompt to complete a difficult task Highest ProbabilityLowest ProbabilityModerate Probability

26

27

28

29 Stimulus Fading Analysis  Research Question 2  Given that various dimensions of reinforcement can be arranged to increase adaptive responding (e.g., task compliance, mands) over problem behavior, are there differential effects of stimulus fading when only 2 response options receive reinforcement (i.e., compliance and problem behavior) versus when 3 response options receive reinforcement (i.e., compliance, mands, and problem behavior)?

30 Stimulus Fading 2-Choice Complete Increasingly Difficult Task Highest Quality/Duration (1 min) Break Lowest Quality/Duration (10 s) Break Prompt to complete a difficult task Highest Probability?Lowest Probability? Problem Behavior

31

32 Stimulus Fading Analysis Mand Complete Increasingly Difficult Task Problem Behavior Medium Quality/Duration (30 s) Break Highest Quality/Duration (1 min) Break Lowest Quality/Duration (10 s) Break Prompt to complete a difficult task Highest Probability?Lowest Probability?Moderate Probability?

33

34 Summary Question #1  Participant’s choices are sensitive to varying qualities of reinforcement in context of three choices –Work –Break –Problem behavior  When they don’t have to actually complete work

35 Summary Question #2  As task requirements increase, choices shift –More break choices –More problem behavior choices, but not many –Results are inconsistent  Gives rise to new questions –Do we need to increase reinforcement for work choice as task requirements increase? –Does everyone need 3-choice –How can we predict who needs the 3-choice intervention? –Sequence effects?

36 Contact Information  For more information, contact –Stephanie M. Peterson, Ph.D., BCBA –  Thank you for your attention!


Download ppt "Single-case Analysis of the Effects of Concurrent Schedules of Reinforcement on Problem Behavior, Requests for Breaks, and Work Choices Stephanie M. Peterson,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google