1. Wayne Fisher, Tom Kratochwill and Rob Horner

2. Application Exercise for Design Standards

3.  Independent variable is actively manipulated  Baseline ◦ At least 5 data points  Each phase has at least five data points.  Opportunity to assess three demonstrations of basic effect at three different points in time.

4. BASELINE Meets Meets with reservation Does not meet EVALUATE DESIGN Meets design standard Meets with Reservation Does not meet design std. EVALUATE EVIDENCE Strong Moderate No Evidence 1 2 3 4a 4b 5a 5b 6 7a 7b 8 9 10

5.  For each graph ◦ Read the introductory slide(s) ◦ Define the IV, DV and research question(s) ◦ Determine if the design allows interpretation of experimental control. ◦ Determine if the data document a functional relationship ◦ If a functional relationship is demonstrated, assess the level of effect size. ◦ Determine if the data document a socially significant effect ◦ Determine if the data demonstrate a conceptually or theoretically important effect.

6.  For each graph ◦ Read the introductory slide(s) ◦ Determine if the design allows interpretation of experimental control. ◦ Do NOT focus the extent to which the DATA support a functional relation, but on whether the DESIGN allows assessment of functional relation

7. Choice Analysis  Choosing among multiple alternatives has been shown to be an effective reinforcer for individuals with developmental disabilities (Fisher, Thompson, Piazza, Crosland, & Gotjen, 1997).  In the current investigation, access to choice was used to reduce destructive behaviors by implementing a full-session DRL contingency in which rates of problem behavior were required to be at or below a criterion level in order for the reinforcer (i.e., choosing an activity) to be delivered (Deitz & Repp 1973 ).  Dependent Variables: Combined inappropriate behaviors, including: aggression (hitting, biting, kicking, and pinching others), SIB (head slapping and head banging), and property destruction (throwing or tearing items).  Independent Variable: Activity selected by staff versus activity selected by participant. Graph 1

8. 2 4 6 8 10 12 13579111315171921232527 Sessions Combined Inappropriate Behavior per Minute Participant’s ChoiceStaff Choice Participant’s Choice 1 Graph 1

9. EVALUATE DESIGN Meets design standard Meets with Reservation Does not meet design std. EVALUATE EVIDENCE Strong Moderate No Evidence 1Meets 2 3 4a 4b 5a 5b 6 7a 7b 8 9 10

10. Continuous Reinforcement versus Multiple Schedule with an Extinction (EXT) Component The primary purpose of the current investigation was to replicate the findings of Hanley et al. (2001) by evaluating the efficacy of a multiple-schedule arrangement for maintaining low mand rates. Dependent Variables: Mand– a mand was defined as picking a card that had the words “attention please” written on it off the floor and placing it in the hand of the therapist (participant’s mother); the rate of mands during periods of reinforcement and EXT were recorded separately. Graph 2

11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 04812162024283236404448 Mands per Minute 30/3030/27030/3030/10230/6830/4530/6830/10230/153 Baseline (FR-1) Multiple Schedules (SR+/EXT) BL (FR-1) Multiple Schedules (SR+/EXT) 2 Graph 2

12. EVALUATE DESIGN Meets design standard Meets with Reservation Does not meet design std. EVALUATE EVIDENCE Strong Moderate No Evidence 1Meets 2Meets with Reservation 3 4a 4b 5a 5b 6 7a 7b 8 9 10

13. Effects of Direct Instruction on Self-Help Skills Children diagnosed with progressive neuro-degenerative disorder typically lose skills rather than obtain new ones. Continuing acquisition of skills is important to such children, however, as it can impact postsecondary options. In particular, the acquisition of self-help skills is critical as they contribute to the possibilities for persons with severe DD to live in less restrictive community-based settings and to allow personal choice (Matson, Smalls, Hampff, Smiroldo, & Anderson, 1998; Arnold-Reid, Schloss, & Alper, 1997). Ultimately, this affects quality of life (Matson, Taras, Sevin, Love and Fridley, 1990). Instruction using a system of least-to-most prompts was introduced for two tasks in combination with delivery of positive verbal praise after each completed step in the task analysis and delivery of an edible reinforcer following completion of the entire task. Dependent Variables: Completing all of the steps of a task analysis for: making a sandwich making a bed Graph 3

14. 0 20 40 60 80 100 135791113151719212325272931 0 20 40 60 80 100 135791113151719212325272931 Session Make a Bed Sandwich BLInstruction 3 Percent Task Analysis Steps Graph 3 What would it take to make this design experimental? Are “probe” points convincing?

15. Functional Analysis of Self-Injury Previous research has suggested self-injury may be maintained by escape from task demands. In Graph 4a the impact of allowing self-injury to access escape from demands compared to a control condition in which no demands were made and self-injury was ignored. In Graph 4b the impact of teaching a socially appropriate, functionally equivalent response to escaping task demands was assessed. Topographies of SIB include, but are not limited to: –Hand to head hitting –Hand Biting –Fist to chin hitting Graph 4

16. 0 1 2 3 123456789101112 Sessions Total SIB per minute Demand ControlDemand 4A Graph 4a How would you improve this design?

17. 0 1 2 3 123456789101112131415 Sessions Total SIB per minute Demand Control Demand Graph 4a

18. 0 1 2 3 123456789101112131415 Sessions Total SIB per minute Demand Control Demand Graph 4a

19. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 15101520253035 Sessions Total SIB per minute FCTBaseline FCT 4B Graph 4b

20. Functional Analysis of Inappropriate Behavior Individuals diagnosed with autism may engage in both “essential” behaviors (e.g., stereotypy, rituals) and “associated” problem behaviors (e.g., aggression and self-injurious behavior [SIB]). Results of previous research suggest that characteristic behaviors of autism and other destructive behaviors may be maintained by the same function, different functions, or interrelated reinforcement contingencies. In the current investigation, we identified the variables that maintained both “essential” and “associated” behaviors and evaluated the effects of function-based treatment when applied to each function. We first conducted two separate functional analyses. The purpose of the first analysis was to determine the maintaining variables of behaviors that are characteristic of a diagnosis of autism. The purposes of the second analysis were to determine (1) the maintaining variables of other destructive behaviors and (2) whether the functions identified by the first and second analyses were maintained by the same function, different functions, or interrelated reinforcement contingencies. Finally, we conducted function-based treatment analyses. Dependent Variables: Compulsive behavior: opening and shutting doors and turning lights on and off without permission, straightening/organizing objects, watching doors close, nose picking (i.e., placing any part of the finger into the nostril) Aggression-hitting, kicking, slapping, grabbing, biting, grabbing SIB: biting any part of the arm, hand, or leg Graph 5

21. 0 1 2 3 4 5 05101520253035404550 Sessions Combined Inappropriate Behavior Per Minute Demand Ignore Attention Toy Play Tangible 5A Graph 5a Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under Tangible versus Toy Play conditions?

22. 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1591317212529333741454953 Sessions OCD Behaviors per Minute Walking Baseline NCR+BlockWalking Baseline NCR+BlockWalking Baseline NCR+Block 5B Graph 5b Design: ABABAB Why were the last A and B phases added?

23. Effects of Modeling (Treatment) on Correct Naming of Unfamiliar People Children with autism exhibit significant deficits in social interaction (DSM-IV). Research has indicated that modeling may enhance the acquisition of specific social skills (Charlop & Milstein, 1989; Gena, Krantz, McClannahan, & Poulson, 1996). The identification of unfamiliar faces is an important prerequisite skill for social interaction. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of therapist modeling for teaching the names of unfamiliar people to a 4-year old male diagnosed with autism. Dependent Variable: Data were collected on the percent of correct responses Graph 6

24. Vivian 0 20 40 60 80 100 Tammy 0 20 40 60 80 100 Dr. Cathy 20 40 60 80 100 010203040506070 Percentage of Correct Item Naming BL Sessions Modeling Lollipop for R+ 6 Graph 6

25. Functional Analysis of Aggression/ Manding The purpose of the current investigation was to determine the environmental variable responsible for aggressive behavior when initial functional analysis yielded low levels of aggressive behavior across all conditions. Further, several treatment conditions were evaluated to determine an effective treatment. Dependent Variables Aggression- Biting, scratching, pinching, hitting, kicking, punching Manding- Any appropriate request to interact with items or the therapist Graph 7

26. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 02468101214161820 Session Aggression per Minute BL FCT choice + EXT NCR+EXT 7A Graph 7a Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under NCR+EXT versus FCT Choice + EXT conditions?

27. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 02468101214161820 Session Aggression per Minute BL FCT choice + EXT NCR+EXT Graph 7a Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under NCR+EXT versus FCT Choice + EXT conditions?

28. 0 1 2 3 4 5 05101520253035404550 Sessions Combined Inappropriate Behavior Per Minute Demand Ignore Attention Toy Play Tangible Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under Tangible versus Demand conditions?

29. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 15 10 15202530354045 Sessions OCD Responses per Minute Demand Play Ignore Attention Tangible Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under Tangible versus Play conditions?

30. 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 02468101214161820 Session Mands per Minute BL FCT Choice + EXT NCR+EXT 7B Graph 7b Is there a difference in Behavior Mands per min NCR+EXT versus FCT Choice + EXT conditions? Is there a difference in Mands per Min under Baseline versus FCT Choice + EXT conditions?

31. Effects of Response Interruption on Stereotypic Behavior Stereotypic behaviors (e.g., twirling objects) are essential features of autism. Caregivers often discourage or interrupt these problematic behaviors because they interfere with social and academic development. Destructive behaviors (e.g., aggression) are often associated with autism, but are not essential features of the disorder. Fisher et al. (1996) proposed an operant model of these essential and associated symptoms of autism in which (a) stereotypic behaviors are often maintained by automatic reinforcement; (b) caregivers regularly interrupt these responses, which produces deprivation from automatic reinforcement and can evoke more destructive responses (e.g., aggression); (c) caregivers may then stop interrupting the stereotypies, which may function as reinforcement for destructive behavior, and (d) analyzing the functions of both the essential (e.g., stereotypies) and associated (e.g., aggression) features of autism can lead to more effective treatments.  An initial functional analysis that included toy play, ignore, attention, demand, and tangible conditions indicated that destructive behaviors were reinforced by escape from demands, but descriptive data also suggested that interruption of stereotypic behavior also evoked destructive behavior, so the following analyses were conducted. Graph 8

32. Dependent Variables: Destructive Behaviors: Aggression – biting, scratching, pinching, hitting, kicking, head-butting, or choking another person Body Slapping – hitting body with open hand, closed hand, or wrist from a distance of 6 inches or more; excludes clapping hands (open palm contacting the other open palm) Head Hitting – contacting head with open or closed hand from a distance of 3 inches or more; excludes contacting head with tips of fingers Head Banging – contacting head to any surface (i.e., wall, table, chair, knee) from a distance of 6 inches or more Body Slamming – throwing body into the back of a chair with intensity where the chair legs come off of the ground Stereotypic Behaviors (behaviors that were interrupted during the interrupt phase): Repetitive Item Manipulation – Dangling a food or toy item while holding it between the thumb and index and/or middle finger Repetitive Motor Movements – Moving upper body back and forth in a rocking movement; holding one foot in air and twisting it from side to side; holding hand in front of body and rotating wrist. Graph 8

33. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1591317212529333741 Sessions Combined Inappropriate per minute ControlInterrupt FCT 8 Graph 8 What would it take to allow analysis of experimental effect? Note combination of Control, FCT into one phase given common data pattern A B C A

34. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1591317212529333741454953576165 Sessions Combined Inappropriate per minute ControlInterrupt FCT Graph 8

35. Effects of Time Out plus Competing Behavior Instruction Children are generally expected to sit quietly (often with limited access to preferred stimuli) in waiting rooms (e.g., in a Doctor’s office or similar setting), but children with autism often display behaviors that are highly incompatible with the expectations of a waiting room, including hyperactivity, a short attention span, and stereotypic or compulsive behaviors (e.g., frequent activity changes, repetitive vocalizations and motor movements, rearranging furniture). Dependent Variables: Rate of out of seat behavior Percentage of session with out of seat behavior Experimental Design: Treatment Analysis for out of seat behavior Combination of multiple reversals design (ABCBC) A: Ignore Baseline B: Competing Items condition alone (Alternative behavior to waiting) C: Competing Items plus Time out (TO) Graph 9

36. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1357911131517192123252729313335 Session Out of Seat Behavior per minute Baseline Competing Items (CI) CICI + TO 9 Graph 9 ABAB

37. Analysis of Non-Contingent Reinforcement plus Extinction The purpose of this assessment was to increase in-seat behavior and compliance during schoolwork. Baseline conditions in which destructive behavior resulted in 30-sec of escape were compared to several treatment conditions. Treatment conditions consisted of NCR with and without extinction, and DRA with extinction for destructive behavior and reinforcement for compliance. Dependent Variables: Destructive behavior: SIB: self-hitting/biting, body slamming, & headbanging Aggression: hitting, kicking, pushing, grabbing, scratching, pinching others Disruption: banging on surfaces (6 inches or more), throwing objects, property destruction, turning over furniture, elopement (moving furniture to get away) Spitting: the release of secretions from the mouth with force, saliva play SOB: cursing, insulting statements/gestures Tantrum: duration of crying and/or screaming (3sec delay) Compliance: completion of demand before the physical prompt In seat: duration of appropriate sitting with buttocks in chair, feet not kicking instructor/chair/table, chair flat on floor Graph 10

38. 0 20 40 60 80 100 2468101214161820 SESSIONS PERCENT OF APPROPRIATE IN- SEAT BEHAVIOR NCR + EXT Baseline 10 Graph 10

39. EVALUATE DESIGN Meets design standard Meets with Reservation Does not meet design std. EVALUATE EVIDENCE Strong Moderate No Evidence 1Meets 2Meets with Reservation 3Does not meet 4aDoes not meet 4bMeets 5aMeets 5bMeets 6 7aDoes not meet 7bFCT-NCR (meets) FCT-BL (does not meet) 8Does not meet 9Meets 10Meets