1 / 24

Manipulating Antecedent Conditions to Alter the Stimulus Control of Problem Behavior

Manipulating Antecedent Conditions to Alter the Stimulus Control of Problem Behavior. Raquel Torres Caldwell College Graduate Program in Applied Behavior Analysis. Manipulating Antecedent Conditions to Alter the Stimulus Control of Problem Behavior Author. Craig H. Kennedy

Mia_John
Download Presentation

Manipulating Antecedent Conditions to Alter the Stimulus Control of Problem Behavior

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Manipulating Antecedent Conditions to Alter the Stimulus Control of Problem Behavior Raquel Torres Caldwell College Graduate Program in Applied Behavior Analysis

  2. Manipulating Antecedent Conditions to Alter the Stimulus Control of Problem Behavior Author • Craig H. Kennedy • Conducted the study at the University of Hawaii • Spring of 1994 • Committee members • John Baldwin • James Halle • Thomas Haring • Robert Koegel • Marta Valdez-Mencheca

  3. Previous Research used Interspersal Techniques Carr, Newson, and Binkoff (1976) showed that when task demands were interspersed at low rates among high rates of social comments, near-zero levels of self-injury occurred. Horner et al. 1991 showed similar effects with interspersed requests. Mace et al., 1988 showed interspersing high-probability/low-probability response sequences showed reduction in problem behavior.

  4. Previous Research used Fading Techniques • Weeks & Gaylord-Ross 1981, used fading for task difficulty by altering the physical characteristics of stimuli to achieve criterion. • Heidorn & Jensen 1984, used fading in stimuli along the dimension of rate.

  5. What was the Purpose of this Study? • Interspersal techniques: although they appear to alter condition associated with demands the durability of these outcomes are restricted. • Studies did not increase frequency of demands relative to social comments across time.

  6. More questions ? Fading Techniques: a concern is that no procedure is in effect to suppress problem behavior if it reoccurs during fading (Pace et al. 1993). These two techniques individually lacked in effectively manipulating problem behaviors.

  7. Study wanted to: • Combine interspersal and fading techniques to immediately reduce problem behavior for 3 students with severe disabilities. • As well as reestablish high levels of task demands, and minimize reoccurrence of problem behaviors.

  8. Method • Participants • Edgar, 20 yr. old, autism/moderate intellectual retardation • Verbalizations, biting self, grabbing others during demands and alterations in schedule • Sally, 20 yr. old, severe intellectual retardation, autistic-like behavior, & cerebral palsy • Screaming, hitting others, falling to the ground during instruction and demands • Ernest, 20 yr. old, profound intellectual retardation and significant health impairments, complete paralysis except right arm. • Hitting, throwing objects, hitting others during instruction

  9. Method • 3 students were nominated by 2 special education teachers because they engaged in stereotypy, self-injury, and/or aggression problem behaviors • Setting: • Classroom • Areas for cooking, cleaning dishes, and cabinets for storing materials

  10. Method-Dependent Variable • Frequency of the following: • Correct/incorrect task performance • Accurate/inaccurate responding to instruction requests • Noncompliance to a task request • Failure to follow instructional request within 15s • Positive social affect • Smiling, laughing, nodding “yes”, positive verbalization “I like you” • Problem behavior • Edgar-verbalization, biting self, grabbing others • Sally- screaming, hitting others, falling on ground • Ernest-throwing objects, hitting objects, hitting others

  11. Method-Design Used • Phase I • Multielement design • Analyze antecedent conditions associated with differing topographies of student behavior • Phase II • Multiprobe baseline across students • Effects of manipulating antecedent conditions • Phase III • Multielement design 3 phases were constructed so that assessment of variables associated with problem behavior could be done before and after an analysis of the effects of the independent variable.

  12. Method-Independent Variable Took previously learned skills • Edgar stacked chairs, and Sally and Ernest shelved dishes • Trials: 4 trials per minute could be completed • 1 trial took max. about 15 seconds to complete • Each trial consisted of a single task demand • Responded correctly=verbal remark/comment and problem behavior ignored • Responded incorrectly= brief pause and another task demand was delivered

  13. Method-Phase I • Phase I – 4 antecedent conditions • High demand, high comment • High demand, low comment • Low demand, high comment • Low demand, low comment • High demand conditions=4 requests per minute • Low demand conditions= 1 request every 2.5 minutes • High comment conditions=remarks 6 per minute • Low comment conditions= no remark • Sessions once per day, each condition occurred once per session • Each condition lasted 5 min and a 5 min interval occurred between each condition (was asked to wait)

  14. Method-Phase II • Baseline: session lasted 10 minutes • Once or twice per day • Baseline simulated typical one-on-one teaching • Four demands per minute and no social remarks/comments • Antecedent manipulation intervention • 1 demand per 2.5 min, and 6 social remarks per minute • Low frequency of problem behavior=demands gradually increased • If problem behavior increased=demands decreased • Determined by visual inspection of trends between task demands and problem behavior

  15. Method-Phase III • Replicated phase I • To reassess variables identified as problem behaviors during phase I

  16. IOA • Videotaped all sessions • Continuous even recording was used • 25% of sessions were assessed • Mean agreement for occurrences across student behavior 89% • Mean agreement for occurrences across instructor behavior 93% • Mean agreement for nonoccurrence of instructor behavior 95%

  17. Social Validity • Motivation Rating Scales (Dunlap & Koegel 1980; Koegel & Egel 1979) • 8 personnel from 2 special education classes and a supported employment organization served as raters • Random video scenes of the students in phase II baseline and final days of intervention • Treatment Evaluation Inventory (Kazdin, 1980) • Same raters, scored different video scenes • Random scenes from initial intervention to final days

  18. Phase I Edgar-84% Sally-70% Ernest-44% of the time responded correctly during high demand conditions 92% 70% 70% of the time responded correctly during low demand conditions Results showed task demands related to increased levels of problem behavior, and social comments were related to increased levels of positive social affect for students Results

  19. Results • Phase II • Edgar increased his mean % of correct responses to task demands from 85% (baseline) to 92% (intervention) • Ernest increased his % of correct responses to task demands from 42%(baseline) to 76% (intervention) • Sally increased her % of correct responses to task demands from 54% (baseline) to 90% (intervention) • Low frequencies of task demands were interspersed with high frequencies of social comments. Task demands were then faded. This resulted in reduction of problem behavior with task demands being increased.

  20. Results • Phase III • High Demand Conditions • Edgar’s correct responding occurred 86% • Sally’s correct responding occurred 73% • Ernest’s correct responding occurred 43% • Low Demand Conditions • Edger 88% • Sally 82% • Ernest 42% • Reduced problem behavior and increased work productivity when task demands were systematically varied in phase II.

  21. Considerations • During phase II-Negative reinforcement extinction could have resulted. When students did not comply with completing a task they were not allowed to escape the task. Therefore problem behaviors could have decreased not because of social comments and low/high demands but because of the delivery of an aversive stimuli. • Social comments were scheduled independent of student responding so they could have functioned as a reinforcer for task-related behavior. Study agrees further research should be explored in the role of stimulus control in relation to behavior in the applied setting.

  22. Reference • Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious behavior: A review of some hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 800-816. • Carr, E. G., Newsom, C. D., & Binkoff, J. A. (1976). Stimulus control of self-destructive behavior in a psychotic child. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4, 139-153. • Carr, E. G., Newsom, C. D., & Binkoff, J. A. (1980). Escape as a factor in the aggressive behavior of two retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 101-117. • Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R. L. (1980). Motivating autistic children through stimulus variation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 619-628. • Heidorn, S. D., & Jensen, C. C. (1984). Generalization and maintenance of reduction of self-injurious behavior maintained by two types of reinforcement. Behavior Research and Therapy, 22, 581-586. • Horner, R. H., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probetechnique: A variation on the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 460-473. • Horner, R. H., Day, H. M., Sprague, J. R., O'Brien, M., & Heathfield, L. T. (1991). Interspersed requests: A nonaversive procedure for reducing aggression and selfinjury during instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 265-278. • Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3-20. • Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Kalsher, M. J., Cowdery, G. E., & Cataldo, M. F. (1990). Experimental analysis and extinction of self-injurious escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 11-27. • Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259-273. • Koegel, R. L., & Egel, A. L. (1979). Motivating autistic children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 418- 426. • Mace, F. C., Hock, M. L., Lalli, J. S., West, B. J., Belfiore, P. J., Pinter, E., & Brown, D. K. (1988). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 123-141. • Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between the discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149-155. • Pace, G. M., Iwata, B. A., Cowdery, G. E., Andree, P. J., & McIntyre, T. (1993). Stimulus (demand-frequency) fading during extinction of self-injurious escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 205-212. • Parrish, J. M., Cataldo, M. F., Kolko, D. J., Neef, N. A., & Egel, A. L. (1986). Experimental analysis of response covariation among compliant and inappropriate behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 241-253. • Repp, A. C., Harman, M. C., Felce, D., van Acker, R., & Karsh, K. G. (1989). Conducting behavioral assessments on computer-collected data. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 57-71. • Singer, G. H. S., Singer,J., & Horner, R. H. (1987). Using pretask requests to increase the probability of compliance for students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 287-291. • Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., & Langer, S. N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 343-351. • Weeks, M., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1981). Task difficulty and aberrant behavior in severely handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 449-463.

More Related