OBM Newsletter 2502

8/3/2019 OBM Newsletter 2502

1/18

Volume 25, Number 2: 2011

Editor

Krystyna Riley, M.A.

Department of Psychology

3700 Wood Hall

Western Michigan University

Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5439

[email protected]

OBM Network News publishes

news, brief articles, book reviews,

and information related to

Organizational BehaviorManagement (OBM) and Applied

Behavior Analysis (ABA).

Submissions should be emailed

to the editor and should comply

with the style described in the

Publication Manual of the

American Psychological

Association (6th

ed.). For more

information on submission

guidelines, please visit

www.obmnetwork.com

The deadline to submit articles for

the next issue ofOBM Network News

is: September 30, 2011

Editors Message 2Krystyna Riley, M.A.

OBM at ABAI 2011Its Convention Time! 2Heather McGee, Ph.D.

A Book Review: Intervencin Psicolgica en

la Empresa 4Rodrigo Ynez G., Ph.D.

The Effects of Different Inter-Prompt

Intervals on Safe Behavior 6Liliane de Aguiar-Rocha

OBM at ABAI 2011 Cheat Sheet 15
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/18

2

Editors MessageKrystyna Riley, M.A.

Western Michigan University

Hello readers!

Im happy to bring you another interesting edition of

the newsletter. First, our Director and the OBM Area

Senior Coordinator for ABAI 2011, Heather McGee,

gives a quick overview of some of the OBM talks that

can be seen the upcoming ABAI Convention. Next,

Rodrigo Ynez G. shares a review of the book,

Intervencin Psicolgica en la Empresa, written by

Dr. Luis Lpez-Mena. This book, written in Spanish, is

an introduction to OBM techniques and applications,

and is a fantastic example of how people all over the

world are trying to spread the word aboutOrganizational Behavior Management.

Liliane de Aguiar-Rocha then describes a very

interesting study she conducted, analyzing the

effects of different intervals of prompts on safe

ergonomic behavior. Lastly, we bring you the 2011

OBM at ABAI Cheat Sheet so that you dont have to

flip through your ABAI book in order to find all of the

OBM presentations. Just print out this guide, and

youll be set for ABAI!

Im also excited to announce some OBMN Officertransitions! Three officers are currently in the

process of stepping down and training other

graduate students as replacements. After about

three years in the position, Sarah VanStelle, our

Membership Coordinator, is passing down the

position to Yngvi Einarsson, a graduate student in Dr.

Alyce Dickinsons research lab. Jeana Koerber, our

Treasurer for the past year and a half, will be

handing off her duties to Nathan Bechtel, a student

in Dr. Heather McGees lab.

And lastly, after heading up the Newsletter for the

past three years, I will be passing it off to Hana

Manal, a graduate student in Dr. Ron Van Houtens

lab. Hana assisted with editing articles for this issue,

will be taking the lead on the next issue, and will be

on her own starting in 2012. So, for the next issue,

you can either submit your articles tome, or to

Hana. We are confident that all three of these

talented students will do an excellent job in theirnew roles!

I would like to thank the entire OBMN team for their

feedback and support throughout the past few

years, and of course, the Newsletter contributors for

their quality submissions. I will miss working closely

with this fantastic group of people, but look forward

to staying involved in the Network in the future.

With that, I hope you enjoy this issue of the OBM

Network News! It should help pass the time while

you are traveling to ABAI. As Dr. McGee mentionsbelow, dont forget to attend the OBMN Business

meeting on Monday! I hope everyone has a fantastic

time in Denver. Safe travels!

OBM at ABAI 2011Its Convention Time!

By Heather McGee, Ph.D.

OBMN Director and OBM Area Senior Coordinator ABAI 2011

ABAI 2011 has a lot to offer OBMers, so plan on joining us in Denver to learn,

network, and be inspired! Interested in learning how to use Behavioral

Systems Analysis and OBM to improve workplace performance? Then attend

one of the four OBM workshops! Drs. Lori Diener and Heather McGee are

offering two 3-hour workshops: Improving Organizational Systems and Improving Workplace

Performance Support, while Dr. Guy Bruce is offering a 6-hour workshop: Data-Based Process to Improve

Outcomes for Children with Autism. Dr. Denny Reid will be offering a workshop on Saturday morning:

Training and Supervising Support Staff: Evidence-Based Strategies.

.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/18

3

Theres something for everyone at the OBM talks this year.

Learn more about how OBM is applied across a wide variety

of industries and settings by attending Improving the

Graduate Admissions Process in a Small Public University

Department, A Behavioral Skills Training Approach to Safe

Operation on Open Waters, Supporting Large ScaleOrganizational Change in a Mining and Refining Operation,

and The Effectiveness and Sustainability of a Tutoring

Chinese Package. Broaden your OBM horizons with such

talks as, Positive Behavior Supports for Highly

Individualized Treatment Centers? Yes, There is a Place,

Programming for Communication in a Large

School-Based Treatment Program,On the Motivating Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility at the Point

of Online Purchase, and I've Been Waiting: Sunk Time Effects in Online Dating.

Gain a better understanding of the intricacies of feedback and goal setting by attending Evaluating

Preference for Graphic Feedback on Correct versus Incorrect Responses, Using Reinforcement Sensitivity

Theory to Predict the Efficacy of Positive and Negative Reinforcement of Goal-Directed Behavior, and The

Effects of Graphic Individual and Social Comparison Feedback on Performance When Individuals Earn

Monetary Incentives. Whatever you choose, youre sure to be amazed by the breadth of the field of OBM.

Be sure to attend the invited events! They are diverse and sure to be amazing and, believe me, youre going to

kick yourself later if you miss one! On Saturday, May 28, invited presenter Dr. Phil Chase will discuss how the

Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies is using Performance Systems Analysis to improve the ways in which

it responds to the challenges of communicating the value of behavior analysis to diverse audiences in his talk

Are You TED Worthy? Using Performance Systems Analysis to Target Public Awareness. The thought

provoking invited events continue on Sunday, May 29. In his B.F. Skinner Lecture entitled, Performance

Architecture: The Art and Science of Improving Organizations, Roger Addison will discuss how Performance

Architecture models and tools can be applied within a systems framework to improve the worker, the work,and the workplace. Then, on Monday, May 30, invited tutorial presenter and OBM Network Lifetime

Achievement winner, Dr. Terry McSween, will describe how Quality Safety Edge (QSE) has addressed the

unique challenges that arise when growing a business from a practice of three friends to a multi-million dollar,

international consulting firm in his talk Organizational Behavior Management Consulting Some of the

Challenges of Growth.

Be sure to join us for back to back JOBM and OBM

Network Business Meetings on Monday, May 30. The

JOBM Business meeting begins at 7:30 pm in Room 301

of the Convention Center and is open to current

Editorial Board members as well as any OBMer

interested in serving on the JOBM Editorial Board. Comefind out how you can help serve the field of OBM

through involvement in the journal. Stay in Room 301 of

the Convention Center for the OBM Network Business

meeting, which starts at 8:00 pm. This years meeting

will focus on networking through opportunities to meet

new people and participate in the planning of the next

OBM Network Conference. As always, OBMN members


4/18

4

will receive tickets good for two free drinks and those who have recruited additional members will receive a

third drink ticket. Come find out whats new with the Network while you network!

Worried that you wont be able to keep all of the events straight? Print a copy of the OBM at ABAI 2011

Cheat Sheet. Weve created a table of all of the OBM events at this years ABAI so all you have to worryabout is choosing which ones to attend!

See you in the Mile High City!

A Book Review: Intervencin

Psicolgica en la EmpresaRodrigo Yez G., Ph.D.

Concepcin University (Chile)

Technical literature regarding Organizational

Behavior Management (OBM) is scarce, or maybe

even nonexistent in the Spanish language. This

situation restricts the diffusion of knowledge and

methodologies that have proven their ability to

accomplish change and improvement within

organizations and, thus, it may negatively affect the

development of such methodologies.

Intervencin Psicolgica en la Empresa , written byDr. Luis Lpez-Mena, provides managers a broad and

practical outlook, starting from the basics of OBM

which are rooted in the knowledge obtained by the

experimental study of the natural processes of

human learning. The author's effort is aimed at

explaining how this knowledge can account for the

emergence of behavior, and how this behavior

changes within the workplace. From there, the

author uses familiar knowledge regarding the

principles of behavior to show how these can be

used within the company. Principles of behavior are

used within business and industry in order to reverse

unproductive or unsafe behavior, or those behaviors

that lead to non-conformities, all without disturbing

the work environment.

This work reflects the steady progress of OBM in

recent decades, and also its analysis integrates the

last advances in neuroscience. By using knowledge

from experimental

work, it is easier to

replicate, improve,

and test or confirm

several explanationsof the causes of

human behavior,

through functional

behavior assessment.

The reader can

observe the evolution

of this knowledge and

see how it has evolved into useful, applicable, and

measurable information.

The text describes various resources of the

psychology of behavior whose usefulness has been

proven. Its presentation is not just conceptual. The

delivered examples have two interesting features: a)

they relate to applications made directly by

industrial psychologists over the industrial or service

areas, and b) they describe consulting work

performed by the author in several companies,

countries, and continents. These experiences allow

him to describe ways of managing similar behavior in

culturally diverse contexts. In turn, the reader can

see, step by step, how psychological interventions

usually prove successful in areas underserved byindustrial psychologists.

In the first part of the text, the author describes the

conceptual foundations and how to build a working

model, linking learning and behaviorfrom a logical

and experimental point of view, in order to make his

analysis.


5/18

5

The second part of the

book contains examples of

different applications of

psychology of behavior in

organizations. It showsways in which the

psychologist can

successfully collaborate in

preventing occupational

accidents, in the quality of

goods and services, saving

energy, information

technology, sales and marketing, environmental

care, and in other areas of the organization.

The methodology chapters of the book (V, VI, and

VII) deserve special attention. They describe themeans used by OBM to rule out alternative

explanations of observed changes, which is

particularly cumbersome in natural environments.

However, as noted in this book, the use of

experimental designs, such as multiple baseline

designs, is not only possible but also desirable in

order to evaluate the results of the intervention

performed by the psychologist, thus discarding

nonspecific factors.

In short, the text provides Spanish-speaking readers

an easy way to see how OBM has developed, both

experimentally and conceptually, in the recent

decades. It notes a remarkable improvement in

knowledge, both in the methods used and the

results achieved, despite the fact that these

concepts are still not readily available within the

Spanish language.

REFERENCE

Lpez-Mena, L. (2008). Intervencin Psicolgica en la

Empresa. Madrid: Ediciones Pirmide.

Prof. Rodrigo Yez G., obtained his Psychologist

Title in the University of Chile and his Master Degree

in Social Research and Development at the University

of Concepcin. Currently he is Professor of

Organizational Psychology at the Department of

Psychology of the University of Concepcin, (Chile).

His current research focuses on the development of

methods for organizational research and on

interpersonal relationships in the workplace,

specifically the trust between subordinates and

leaders in the healthcare field. His recent

publications can be found in the journals Liberabit(Per), Science and Nursing (Chile) and, Universitas

Psychologica (Colombia).

Luis Lpez-Mena (author of Intervencin Psicolgica

en la Empresa) is a Psychologist (University of Chile)

and Doctor of Philosophy by Autonomous University

of Barcelona (Spain). Dr. Lpez-Mena was the

founder and is currently the General Manager of

PERSIST LTD., a

consulting firm (since

1987) specialized in

applied Organizational

Behavior Management

concepts and

techniques to quality,

safety, and

environmental affairs in

different countries and

enterprises. He has

developed and probed

with success Methods

like TEPS Method (in

English PTAS Methodfor Psychological Techniques applied to Safety) and

PREMAC Method (a method for at-risk behavior

prevention using self control techniques). Copies of

his publications can be obtained at www.persist.cl

These Methods are available in different languages.

He is an International member of OBM Network.
http://www.persist.cl/http://www.persist.cl/http://www.persist.cl/


6/18

6

The Effects of Different Inter-Prompt

Intervals on Safe Behavior

By Liliane de Aguiar-Rocha

Queens College and The Graduate Center, CUNY

INTRODUCTION

Over the past 20 years, computer use has become increasingly common, both in work places and private

residences (Gerr, Monteilh, & Marcus, 2006). This increase has been associated with a greater incidence of

work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) resulting from repetitive typing (Wilkens, 2003). Factors

contributing to the onset of WMSD include the work station set-up, poor postural habits, and the number of

hours spent typing on a computer. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recommends

the use of an ergonomic adjustable workstation in addition to sitting in a neutral position as ways to reduce

stress and strain on the muscles, tendons, and skeletal system, thus reducing the risk of musculoskeletal

disorders (OSHA, 2008). However, there is evidence that the use of an adjustable work station is not enough

to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (Green & Briggs, 1989; Montreuil, Laflamme, Brisson, &

Teiger, 2006).

Prompts have been used to increase or decrease a variety of behaviorsseat belt use (e.g., Van Houten,

Malenfant, Austin, & Lebbon, 2005), attendance (e.g., Turner & Vernon, 1976), home accident prevention

(e.g., OReilly, Green, & Braunling-McMorrow, 1990)and are a possible method to predispose workers to

initiate postural change. In organizational settings, prompts are commonly used to produce appropriate

responses (Johnson, Redmon, & Mawhinney, 2001). Monitoring and prompting of employees can be

challenging in large organizations, especially in those that employ many isolated workers. The monitoring of

certain continuous behaviors, such as sitting or typing, also presents a challenge. Much time and effortwould be required of a supervisor to monitor the performance of all his/her subordinates. Therefore, self-

management may be preferable in todays organizations (Johnson et al., 2001). Cooper, Heron, and Heward

(2007) refer to the use of response prompts, such as reminders, as one of the simplest, most effective, and

most widely applied self-management techniques.

To the extent of our knowledge, no prior studies have been conducted that evaluate the effects of inter-

prompt intervals (IPIs). The purpose of this study was to seek the least frequent prompt that did not disrupt

the flow of behavior, and to determine the optimal IPI, that which yields the highest level of safety

performance and highest degree of productivity. The current study evaluated and compared the

effectiveness of various IPIs on safe sitting behavior. Safe sitting behavior involved several postural variables;

this study used the definitions offered by OSHA (2008) as guidelines for operational definitions. Participants

were stationed in an ergonomically adjusted desk and were prompted to self-monitor their sitting posture.Four different IPIs (2, 5, 7, and 10 min), and a control condition (no prompts) were examined, in a between

groups design, to compare the effects of different IPIs on safe sitting behavior. It was expected that the

percentage of safe behavior would be higher for the groups that received prompts than for the no-prompt

group.


7/18

7

METHOD

Participants

Fifty undergraduate students participated in this study. Participation fulfilled a laboratory requirement.

Materials, Setting and Duration

The study was conducted in laboratory cubicle located on a college campus. In the cubicle, a desktop

computer was set on an ergonomically safe workstation. A video camera was mounted on the wall, visible to

participants. The camera was angled to capture a lateral view of the participants body while he/she typed.

Data were recorded using a computer program that took pictures of the participants every 180 s. Sessions

lasted approximately 1 hr, and the participants were required to attend two sessions with a maximum of a

one-week interval between sessions.

Pretest, Safety Criteria, and Criteria for Remaining in the Study

The participants were asked to demonstrate their ability to type without looking at the keyboard by copying

a 100-word paragraph into a Microsoft Word document. Those who completed the task successfully weregiven the consent form and were randomly assigned to one of five conditions. A block randomization

procedure was used to control for order and sequence effects. Next, they were given a safety handout

containing the postural variables definitions of safe sitting behavior and were asked to demonstrate it to the

experimenter. Corrective feedback was not provided. In order to continue in the study, the participants had

to exhibit safe behavior during 70% or less of the baseline sessions for at least one postural variable.

Randomization

Participants were assigned to the different conditions using a block randomization procedure. A block

consisted of the five conditions set in any sequential order. There were ten blocks, with five participants in

each. The experimenter randomly arranged the block conditions in a such a way that no condition was

repeated until all five conditions had been run at least once.

Independent Variable

The independent variable was the duration of the interval between prompts to self-monitor (inter prompt

interval (IPI)), and it had five levels: 2 min, 5 min, 7 min, 10 min, and no prompts.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable was the percentage of safe sitting behavior. For the purposes of this study, all

postural variables (head/neck, back, arms, hand/wrists, legs, and feet) were scored, but the participants

needed to meet a maximum of 70% safety on at least one of these variables to move to the intervention

phase. The definitions of safe postures were based on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA, 2008) guidelines, and can be found through this link:

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/computerworkstations/index.html

Secondary Measures

Accuracy and productivity were taken as secondary measures.

Design
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/computerworkstations/index.htmlhttp://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/computerworkstations/index.htmlhttp://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/computerworkstations/index.html


8/18

8

A 2X5 mixed factorial design was used to compare the differential effects of IPIs2 min, 5 min, 7 min, 10

min, and no promptson safe behavior (baseline x intervention).

Procedure

Baseline During baseline, the participants were asked to copy a text of about 1000 words into a MicrosoftWord document. No prompts were provided while the participants typed.

No-prompt condition Participants assigned to the no-prompt condition were exposed to the same

procedures as in baseline.

Two-minute condition Participants assigned to the two-minute condition were asked to type a pre-assigned

text with about 1000 words. While participants typed, on the center of the computer screen, a prompt that

read Check your posture popped up at fixed 2 min intervals and it remained on the screen for 5 s. The

prompts were provided regardless of the safety of the participants behavior. The participant was not able to

type while the prompt was on the screen.

Five-minute condition

The same procedures for the 2 min condition were in effect, but the interval at whichprompts popped up on the screen was 5 min.

Seven-minute condition - The same procedures as the previous two conditions were in effect, with the IPI

changed to 7 min.

Ten-minute condition - The IPI was 10 min; all other procedures remained the same as in the 2, 5, and 7 min

conditions.

Data Collection

The computer program took a photo of the participants full body every 180 s. The saved photo was

examined and evaluated, and each postural variable was marked S for safe samples, and U for unsafe.

The number of safe samples (S) divided by the total number of data points, multiplied by 100% was equal to

the safety percentage, per postural variable. The postural variable that met the safety criterion (70% safe or

less) during baseline was the participants safety score for the session. The mean safety score per group was

used for graphing and for data analysis. That is, in the 2 min condition, for example, the mean safe

percentage of all participants in session one was graphed as the data point for session one in this group.

Interobserver Agreement

Interobserver agreement (IOA) was 93% (SD=6.0, range= 75% to 100%). IOA was calculated for all sessions

on a point-by-point basis by dividing the total number of agreements by the total number of agreements and

disagreements per session, and multiplied by 100%.

DataAnalysis

Differences across group means were analyzed using a (2X5) mixed factorial ANOVA test. The factors were

session type (baseline or intervention), and group (no prompt, and 2, 5, 7, and 10 min inter-prompt interval).

Visual inspection of group graphs was also conducted.


9/18

9

RESULTS

The results show that the percentage of safe sitting behavior increased for all groups during the intervention.

Figure 1 shows the relationship between IPI and safe posture. Safe performance was higher in all the prompt

conditions than in the no-prompt condition, with the exception of the 2 min condition. The highest levels of

safety performance were observed in the five-minute condition, followed by the ten-minute condition.Despite the observed increases in safe performance, the differences between groups were not statistically

significant, F(1, 4) = 0.30,p = 0.88, nor was there a significant interaction, F(1, 45) = 0.26,p = .90. However,

a mixed-factorial ANOVA indicates that there is a significant difference between session type (baseline and

intervention) for all groups F(1, 4) = 30.00,p < .0001.

Figures 2 and 3 depict levels of productivity and typing accuracy for the different groups, respectively.

Productivity and accuracy were not affected by the intervention. There was no significant difference

between the five groups in either session types. A mixed factorial ANOVA indicates that there was no

significant difference in productivity levels between groups, F(4, 94) = 0.33,p = 0.85, or across session types,

F(1, 94) = 0.40,p = 0.52. No significant difference in accuracy levels either between groups, F(4, 94) = 1.81,

p = 0.18, or between sessions, F(1, 94) = 0.69,p = 0.70, was found.

Postural safety

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

No prompt 2 min 5 min 7 min 10 min

Groups

Safety(%)

Baseline Intervention

Figure 1. The effect of IPI of prompts to self-monitor on safe sitting behavior.


10/18

10

93.00

94.00

95.00

96.00

97.00

98.00

99.00

100.00

NP 2min 5min 7min 10min

Groups

Accuracy(%)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

NP 2min 5min 7min 10min

Groups

words/min


Figure 2. Levels of productivity as a function of IPIs.

Figure 3. Accuracy levels per group.


11/18

11

DISCUSSION

The current study was conducted to evaluate whether different IPIs have differential effects on safe sitting

behaviors, and to uncover the optimal IPI that would ensure highest safety, productivity, and accuracy levels.

It was expected that a significant difference would be found between session types (baseline and

intervention), and between groups (no prompt, 2, 5, 7, and 10 min intervals). The present findings indicatedthat, although the effects of session type were significantly different (i.e., intervention sessions yielded

higher levels of safety than baseline sessions), no significant difference among the groups was found.

Therefore, we can say that the prompts did not control the change in safety levels observed in the

intervention session. It is not clear, however, what caused this change. Below, a number of reasons that

might explain the lack of differentiation between groups is discussed.

There was substantial variance in the within-group data, for all five groups, across baseline and intervention

sessions. Table 1 shows the mean and standard deviations per group across baseline and intervention. The

participants received instructions on how to sit safely after the pre-test, before the baseline session, only. It

is possible that the instructions had a greater effect on the participants posture than the prompts

themselves. By reading the instructions, and demonstrating the posture to the experimenter, the

participants may have created their own rule about how to sit. Agnew and Redmon (1993) define rules asfunction-altering, contingency specifying stimuli. If participants did indeed create a rule, that rule may

have been in disagreement with the instructions (i.e., the angle interval considered safe could be different

from what the instructions indicated) in such a way that the participants would still sit unsafely during the

intervention, regardless of the prompts. For instance, for the leg position, the instructions indicated an angle

between 90-110 degrees as safe, however, a participant may have considered angles between 89-111

degrees safe. Since a different rule would be created by each participant, and not by the experimenter, the

large variance in performance within groups might be explained by the variance in the rules. Offering

corrective feedback during the pre-test phase, while the participants demonstrate their posture to the

experimenter, could ensure the formation of more homogeneous rules.

Table 1

Mean and Standard Deviation per Group and a function of Session Type

Session Type

Group Baseline Intervention

Mean SD Mean SD

NP 25.41 21.27 46.91 39.89

2 Min 27.16 14.42 46.91 28.53

5 Min 30.12 22.92 61.62 34.28

7 Min 27.70 22.45 53.40 35.29

10 Min 30.36 14.19 50.66 25.76


12/18

12

Posture varies in novel settings, and it is natural to move and adjust ones posture when sitting on a new

couch, or at a different environment. This fidgety tendency combined with reactivity to the experimental

settings may have masked the true levels of safe posture during baseline. The increase in performance

observed during intervention sessions may have been independent from the intervention, in such a way, that

even in the absence of prompts, a significant change in safe sitting behavior could occur. A way to avoid this

possibility would be to have a larger number of baseline and intervention sessions, thereby making it possible

for a more stable pattern in the participants posture, and any change in it, to be observed.

Some postural variables are known to be extremely hard to change without consequences (e.g., Gravina,

Austin, Schoedtder, & Loewy, 2008). That is due to the habit forming nature of posture, and to the covert

reinforcement that these habitual postures may offer to the individual, e.g., more comfort, less pain.

Variability in the number of postural variables for which each participant met criterion (one to five) may have

contributed to the large variance in the data within groups, which may have caused a ceiling effect. For

instance, if the only postural variable that met criterion was the head, it would be unlikely to change without

the use of consequences (;Rost, 2008; Tittelbach, 2008). As a result, there would be very little chance for

that particular postural variable to change as a function of prompts only. Likewise, if the only variable to be

used was the feet, it is conceivable that the participant might have scored 0% safe during the baseline bykeeping the feet resting on the chairs wheels instead of flat on the floor, and during intervention phase

reached 100% safe, by keeping the feet flat on the floor. Even in the absence of prompts, this would be a

typical way in which behavior might vary.

It is known that operant behavior is controlled by its consequences. The present manipulation involved no

tangible experimenter-defined consequences. Amato-Zech, Hoff, and Doepke (2006) were able to

demonstrate a change in behavior using prompts as the sole intervention; however, the target behavior (self-

monitoring of on-task behavior) has naturally occurring, non-programmed consequences (e.g., the check

marks on the self-monitoring forms) that might serve as reinforcers. It is possible that prompts alone are not

enough to change behavior. In changing sitting behavior, it may be necessary to combine prompts with some

form of feedback about each participants posture.

Something other than the prompts produced the reliable increase in safety levels observed in the

intervention session. Further research is necessary in order to uncover what may have caused this change.

One possibility is that the postural definitions presented on the instructions before the baseline session

somehow hindered the participants' performance during the baseline session. It would be necessary to

partially replicate this study, using a mixed-factorial design, where the presence or absence of instructions

with postural definitions would be manipulated in combination with a manipulation of presence or absence

of prompts in order to assess this.

Future research should also attempt to clarify what the effects are of varying the stimulus properties of a

prompt (e.g., visual versus auditory). A single subject design would be appropriate and may help avoid

possible problems related with reactivity to the experimental setting. Using multiple-baselines across

participants would also allow for comparison between different prompt properties, such as inter-prompt

intervals and prompt mode (e.g., visual, audible, tactile). In addition, it would allow for comparison between

effects of prompts followed or not by consequences. Although there are many areas for possible research,

the question remains: does the frequency and rate with which prompts are presented affect the accuracy of

responding? Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2007) define prompts as supplementary antecedent stimuli used

to occasion a correct response in the presence of discriminative stimuli that will eventually control the

behavior. Therefore, if a prompt is an experimental operation, it would seem that the differential effects of

its parameters should be defined and future research is necessary in order to establish such a definition.


13/18

13

REFERENCES

Agnew, J. L., & Redmon, W. K. (1993). Contingency Specifying Stimuli.Journal of Organizational Behavior

Management, 12, 67-76.

Amato-Zech, N. A., Hoff, K. E., & Doepke, K. J. (2006). Increasing on task behavior in the classroom: extensionof self-monitoring strategies. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 211-221.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007).Applied Behavior Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson.

Gerr, F., Monteilh, C. P., & Marcus, M. (2006). Keyboard use and musculoskeletal outcomes among computer

users.Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 16, 265-277.

Gravina, N., Austin, J., Schoedtder, L., & Loewy, S. (2008). The effects of self-monitoring on safe posture

performance.Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 28, 238-259.

Green, R., & Briggs, C. (1989). Effect of overuse injury and the importance of training on the use of theadjustable workstations by keyboard operators.Journal of Occupational Medicine, 31, 557-562.

Johnson, C. M., Redmon, W. K., & Mawhinney, T. C. (2001).Social Learning Analysis of Behavior Management.

Waldersee, R. & Luthans, F., Handbook of organizational performance (pp.404-405). Binghamton, NY:

The Haworth Press.

Montreuil, S., Laflamme, L., Brisson, C., & Teiger, C. (2006). Conditions that influence the elimination of

postural constraints after office employees working with VDU have received ergonomics training.

Work: Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 26, 157-166.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2008). Computer workstations eTool. Retrieved September

29, 2008 from http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/computerworkstations/index.html

OReilly, M. F., Green, G., & Braunling-McMorrow, D. (1990). Self-administered written prompts to teach

home accident prevention skills to adults with brain injuries.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23,

431-446.

Rost, K. A. (2008). An examination of performance feedback in the laboratory: does feedback specificity

matter? Unpublished masters thesis, The Graduate Center, CUNY, New York.

Tittelbach, D. (2008). Increasing postural safety in an analog office setting using real-time video snapshots.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Graduate Center, CUNY, New York.

Turner, A. J., & Vernon, J. C. (1976). Prompts to increase attendance in a community mental-health center.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9,141-145.

Van Houten, R., Malenfant, J. E., Austin, J., & Lebbon, A. (2005). The effects of a seatbelt- gearshift delay

prompt on the seatbelt use of motorist who do not regularly wear seatbelts.Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 38, 195-203.

Wilkens, P. M. (2003). Preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders in VDT users: A comprehensive

health promotion program. Work: Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 20, 171-178.
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/computerworkstations/index.htmlhttp://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/computerworkstations/index.htmlhttp://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/computerworkstations/index.html


14/18

14

Liliane de Aguiar-Rocha is a graduate student enrolled in the Learning Processes and Behavioral Analysis

(LPBA) doctoral psychology subprogram at The Graduate Center, CUNY. She is part of the Organizational

Behavior Management laboratory at Queens College, where she studies behavioral safety in organizations.

She is particularly interested in antecedent control of performance. She has worked in a psychiatric hospital,

designing behavior plans to address aggressive behaviors of adults with mental illness. There, she had to train

staff members on how to use behavior analytic principles in dealing with the recipients of care's behavior, and

train leadership on how to increase employee's motivation and adherence to the new program. She has also

worked as an ABA therapist for children with developmental disabilities both at home and in school settings.

She is an adjunct lecturer at a local University, and has taught courses in introductory psychology, psychology

of human motivation, psychology of business and industry, advanced experimental psychology: behavior

modification, organization behavior management, and statistics laboratory.

SEE NEXT PAGE FOR OBM AT ABAI 2011 CHEAT SHEET


15/18

15

Title

Exhibit Number Time Room

Friday, May 27, 2011

Improving Organizational Systems*

W1 8:00 AM-11:00 AM 405 (Convention Center(CC))

Data-Based Process to Improve Outcomes for Children With Autism*

W23 8:00 AM-3:00 PM Quartz A (Hyatt Regency)

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Training and Supervising Support Staff: Evidence-Based Strategies*

W71 8:00 AM-11:00 AM Korbel Ballroom 1F (CC)

Defining and Building Professional Delivery Skill Sets for Practicing Behavior Analysts**

15 1:00 PM-1:50 PM 704/706 (CC)

Are you TED Worthy? Using Performance Systems AnalysisTo Target Public Awareness

40 2:00 PM-2:50 PM 607 (CC)

Technological Tools for Consumer Behavior Analysis Online and in Stores:

Motivating and Measuring Choices

68 3:00 PM-4:20 PM 704/706 (CC)

Goal Setting and Time Management and Assertiveness Training: To Develop

Successful Team Work in a Mexican Car Dealership

69 3:00 PM-4:20 PM 710/712 (CC)

The Effectiveness and Sustainability of Four Educational Interventions96 4:30 PM-5:50 PM 710/712 (CC)

Improving Performance Through Systems Changes

97 4:30 PM-5:50 PM 704/706 (CC)

Staff Training Protocol to Increase Interaction During Non-Structured Time

With Children With Autism

109(1) 6:00 PM-7:30 PM Exhibit Hall F (CC)

The Effect of Group Contingency and Public Posting on Teach Job Performance


Increasing Staff on Task Behavior Using an Interdependent Group Contingency


Restraint Reduction Through Staffing Training


Effects of Public Posting and Goal Setting on Team Performance in

a Residential Setting


OBM at ABAI 2011 Cheat Sheet


16/18

16

Educational Experience: Predictors of Retention and Turnover in

Home-Based Programs for Children With Autism?


Correlates of Effective Community Residential Service Models for People with Severe

Disabilities and Challenging Behaviors: A Survey Study


Sunday, May 29, 2011

Performance Architecture: The Art and Science of Improving Organizations*

149 9:00 AM-9:50 AM 607 (CC)

Behavioral Safety Successes and Pitfalls

199 10:30 AM-11:50 AM 704/706 (CC)

Changing the Way the World Works

208 11:00 AM-11:50 AM 710/712 (CC)

Literature Review on Staff Training and Development216(1) 12:00 PM-1:30 PM Exhibit Hall F (CC)

The Effects of Short-Delay Payment on Worker Attendance and Company Costs


Using a Performance Matrix to Improve Customer Service and Up-Selling

In a Home Improvement Store


Effective Use of Peer Influence and Group Contingencies in the Workplace


An Evaluation of Preference Assessment Methodology in Organizational Behavior Management


Effects of Goal Setting, Task Clarification and Feedback on Cargo Trucks Overage

Miles and Fuel Expenses


Training and Motivating Staff Members to Implement Programs in a

Residential Educational Facility**

241 1:30 PM-2:50 PM 704/706 (CC)

The Future of Organizational Behavior Management: Designing Research for Business

242 1:30 PM-2:50 PM 710/712 (CC)

Organizational Behavior Management From Start to Finish: Identification of High-Impact

Areas, Functional Assessment, Treatment Preference Analysis, and Intervention

271 3:00 PM-4:20 PM 710/712 (CC)

Producing Large Scale Systematic Change to Improve and Innovate Schools Serving

Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder**

272 3:00 PM-4:20 PM 704/706 (CC)


17/18

17

The Advising Satisfaction Inventory: A Brief Measure of Student Satisfaction With

Academic Advising Center Services


The Effects of Proximity, Written Prompts, and Public Posting on

Recycling at a University Setting


The Use of Verbal Prompts to Increase Child Safety-Belt Use in a Grocery Store


The Use of a System-Level Token Economy to Increase Customer Satisfaction and

Employee Morale at a Locally-Owned Grocery Store


Changing the Culture of a Rural Child Care Center With Low Intensity Teacher Training


Cash is King: Motivating Supervising Clinicians to Reach Optimal Billing Rates


The Ratio of Safe and At-risk Training Examples Affects Safety-Related Skills

292(7) 6:00 PM 7:30 PM Exhibit Hall F (CC)

Monday, May 30, 2011

Recent Advances in Staff Training**

349 9:00 AM-10:20 AM 710/712 (CC)

Its Not Multiplicative, Its Exponential: Why Expanding Services Requires Assessment**

350 9:00 AM-10:20 AM 704/706 (CC)

Sustainable, Broad-Scale Organizational Change:

Understanding the Critical Success Factors**

380 10:30 AM-11:50 AM 710/712 (CC)

Job Satisfaction and Stress

381 10:30 AM-11:50 AM 704/706 (CC)

A Comparison of the Effects of Positive and Negative Reinforcement

Contingencies on Safety Rule Following Behaviors


Using Interviewee Feedback to Evaluate and Modify an Interview Process398(2) 12:00 PM-1:30 PM Exhibit Hall F (CC)

The Effects of Self-Management on Supervisory Behaviors at a Construction Site


An Examination of the Relative Effects of Supervisor-based and Employee-Based Safety

Managements on Safety Performance at a Construction Site



18/18

18

Organizational Behavior Management Consulting-Some of the Challenges of Growth*

405 1:30 PM-2:20 PM 607 (CC)

Monetary Analyses: Measuring an Interventions Value

434 3:00 PM-3:50 PM 704/706 (CC)

Experimental Analyses of Goal Setting and Feedback Effects

449 3:00 PM-4:20 PM 710/712 (CC)

An Investigation of the Utility of Common Incentive Programs


Teaching Financial Management to Women Recovering From Addiction


Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM) Editors Meeting

475 7:30 PM-8:00 PM 301 (CC)

Organizational Behavior Management Network (OBMN) Business Meeting

485 8:00 PM-8:50 PM 301 (CC)

*PSY and BACB credit offered

**BACB credit offered

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	persist-ltda
View:	227 times
Download:	0 times

OBM Newsletter 2502

Documents