An Evaluation of Three Methods of Denying Access to Computers to a Person with Learning Disabilities

Duncan PritchardAran Hall School

Marguerite HoergerBangor University

Annette Ikin, Jane Kochy, Karen Thomas & Heather Penney

Aran Hall School

F. Charles MaceNova Southeastern University

duncanpritchard@aranhall.com

Aran Hall School, Dolgellau

• Aran Hall School provides care and education to children and young people with autism, learning disabilities and challenging behaviour

• Children and young people referred to the school have experienced multiple placement breakdowns due to the severity of their problem behaviour

• IQ, ABAS

Literature Review

• ‘Do’ requests are more effective than ‘don’t’ requests (Adelinis & Hagopian, 1999)

• Problem behaviours are reduced when alternative reinforcers are made available in the absence of the preferred reinforcer (Fisher et al., 1998)

• Deprivation of the reinforcer may alter the sequence of responses making more severe topographies more likely (O’Reilly, 1999)

• That prosocial alternative behaviours can be added into a response class hierarchy to prevent escalation (Lalli et al., 1995)

Literature Review (cont’d)

• Response class hierarchies are defined by topographically distinct responses that produce common effects on the environment, but have different probabilities of occurrence (Lalli et al, 1995)

• The participant in the Lalli et al. study emitted escape-maintained screams, aggression and self-injury in a stable, escalating sequence

• To date, no research has explicitly examined the effects of different methods of denying children access to preferred activities on response class hierarchies maintained by positive reinforcement

Functional behaviour analysis

• A systematic means of identifying the variables that may control a behaviour

• Both the antecedents and the consequences are examined to help us understand why a behaviour occurs in a particular environmental context

• We can then design and implement a function-based intervention e.g. DRA, RIR

Pilot Study

• We replicated a pilot study carried out at Aran Hall by Mace et al. (in press) that evaluated the relative effects of three methods of ‘saying no’ on requests to engage in a preferred activity on the occurrence and escalation of problem behaviour

Participant in the pilot study

• 13 year old boy with high functioning autism and challenging behaviour

• Descriptive assessment indicated that challenging behaviour was maintained by access to preferred reinforcers

• The participant presented oppositional vocalisations, loud vocalisations, disruptive behaviour and aggression in a stable, escalating sequence

Three methods of ‘saying no’

• A ‘No you can’t; I’m busy doing my work’

• B ‘You can’t use it at the moment but you can play football with Kevin now’

• C ‘Yes you can, just as soon as you have done your school work’

Baseline 1

Baseline 2

Intervention B & C 1 Intervention B & C 2P

erc

en

tag

e o

f 10-s

In

terv

als

Sessions

Limitations of the pilot study

• Only one individual with high functioning autism participated in the pilot study so additional replications are needed to establish generality

• The participant’s immediate and pronounced response to the alternative methods of ‘saying no’ may not hold true for all children

• The pilot study did not incorporate a preference assessment to establish the reinforcement value of the alternative activity i.e. playing football

Participant

• 17 year old male with a moderate learning disability, ADHD and severe challenging behaviour

• Good receptive and expressive language• Height 185cm and weight 115kg• Risperidone and Concerta XL prescribed for

the management of problem behaviour• Epilim for seizure control

Participant (cont’d)

• Excluded from two residential schools prior to his admission to Aran Hall School

• Problem behaviour interfering with the activities of the other pupils in his class

• Response class hierarchy i.e. hits objects (thumps desks, windows, walls), aggression (pushing, hugs, slaps, throwing objects), flops on to the floor

0

100

200

300

400

500

765

Hits objectsAggressionFlops on floor

Sessions

Late

ncy (

s)

to F

irst

Occu

rren

ce

Three ways of ‘saying no’

• A “No you can’t; I’m busy with my work.”

• B “You can’t use it just now, but you can play your guitar, keyboard, football, or do some drawing. You choose.”

• C “Yes you can, just as soon as you’ve done some school work. Let me show you on the card.”

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35 35 35 35

Hits Object

Aggression

Flops to Floor

Sessions / Experimental Conditions

Perc

en

tag

e o

f 1

0-s

In

terv

als

Why does A work?

• Extinction• ‘No you can’t; I’m busy doing my work’• Saying ‘no’ probably functioned as an S by

indicating the unavailability of reinforcement• The baseline condition may reflect the

undesirable effects of extinction such as increased responding (Lerman et al., 1999)

Why does B work?

• Matching Law• ‘You can’t use it at the moment but you can

play football with me now’• An SD for a preferred alternative e.g. football• Choice is a function of relative rate, quality,

delay to reinforcement and effort (Herrnstein, 1970)

Why does C work?

• Premack Principle• ‘Yes you can, just as soon as you’ve done some

school work. Let me show you on the card’• An SD for access to the computer• The probability of a response will go up if it

provides the opportunity to engage in another response more probable than itself (Premack, 1959)

Summary

• The research demonstrates that the evocative effects of ‘saying no’ may be reduced by modifying the stimulus properties of the refusal

• Use to prevent occurrences of escalating problem behaviours when access to preferred activities must be denied for indefinite periods of time

ReferencesAdelinis, J.D. & Hagopian, L.P. (1999). The use of symmetrical ‘do’ and ‘don’t’ requests to interrupt

ongoing activities. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 32, 519-523.Fisher, W.W., Kuhn, D.E, & Thompson, R.H. (1998). Establishing discriminative control of

responding using functional and alternative reinforcers during functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 31, 543-560.

Herrnstein, R.J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 13, 243-266.

Lalli, J.S., Mace, F.C., Wohn, T. & Livezey, K. (1995). Identification and modification of a response class hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 28, 551-559.

Lerman, D.C., Iwata, B.A. & Wallace, M.D. (1999). Side effects of extinction: Prevalence of bursting and aggression during the treatment of self-injurious behaviour. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 32, 1-8.

Mace, F.C., Pratt, J.L., Prager, K.L. & Pritchard, D. (in press) Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis.O’Reilly, M. (1999). Effects of presession attention on the frequency of attention-maintained

behaviour. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 32, 371-374.Premack, D. (1959). Toward empirical behaviour laws: 1. Positive Reinforcement. Psychological

Review, 66, 219-233.

An Evaluation of Three Methods of Denying Access to Computers to a Person with Learning Disabilities

Duncan PritchardAran Hall School

Marguerite HoergerBangor University

Annette Ikin, Jane Kochy, Karen Thomas& Heather Penney

Aran Hall School

F. Charles MaceNova Southeastern University

duncanpritchard@aranhall.com