Date post: | 30-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | audrey-mosley |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 1 times |
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.
Analysis Rubric
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
Instructions
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
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
Sessions
Com
bine
d In
appr
opria
te B
ehav
ior
per
Min
ute
Participant’s Choice Staff Choice Staff ChoiceParticipant’s Choice
1
Graph 1
EVALUATE DESIGN Meets design standardMeets with ReservationDoes not meet design std.
EVALUATE EVIDENCEStrongModerateNo Evidence
1 Meets
2
3
4a
4b
5a
5b
6
7a
7b
8
9
10
Queries
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Man
ds p
er M
inut
e
30
/30
30
/270
30
/30
30
/102
30
/68
30
/45
30
/68
30
/102
30
/153
30
/153
30
/153
Baseline (FR-1)
Multiple Schedules (SR+/EXT) BL (FR-1)
Multiple Schedules (SR+/EXT)
2
Graph 2
EVALUATE DESIGN Meets design standardMeets with ReservationDoes not meet design std.
EVALUATE EVIDENCEStrongModerateNo Evidence
1 Meets
2 Meets with Reservation
3
4a
4b
5a
5b
6
7a
7b
8
9
10
Queries
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Session
Make a Bed
Sandwich
BL Instruction 3Pe
rcen
t Tas
k A
naly
sis
Step
s
Graph 3
What would it take to make this design
experimental?
Are “probe” points convincing?
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
0
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sessions
Tota
l SIB
per
min
ute
Demand Control Demand
4A
Graph 4a
How would you improve this design?
0
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sessions
Tota
l SIB
per
min
ute
Demand ControlControl Demand
Graph 4a
0
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sessions
Tota
l SIB
per
min
ute
Demand ControlControl Demand
Graph 4a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Sessions
Tota
l SIB
per
min
ute
FCTBaseline Baseline FCT4B
Graph 4b
• 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
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Sessions
Com
bine
d In
appr
opria
te B
ehav
ior
Per
Min
ute
Demand
Ignore
Attention
Toy Play
Tangible
5A
Graph 5a
Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under
Tangible versus Toy Play conditions?
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53Sessions
OC
D B
ehav
iors
per
Min
ute
Walking Baseline
NCR+Block Walking Baseline
NCR+Block WalkingBaseline
NCR+Block
5B
Graph 5b
Design: ABABAB
Why were the last A and B phases added?
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
Vivian
0
20
40
60
80
100
Tammy0
20
40
60
80
100
Dr. Cathy20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Per
cent
age
of C
orre
ct It
em N
amin
gBL
Sessions
Modeling Lollipop for R+
Lollipop for R+
Lollipop for R+
6
Graph 6
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Session
Agg
ress
ion
per
Min
ute
BL
FCT choice + EXT
NCR+EXT7A
Graph 7a
Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under NCR+EXT versus
FCT Choice + EXT conditions?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Session
Agg
ress
ion
per
Min
ute
BL
FCT choice + EXT
NCR+EXT
Graph 7a
Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under NCR+EXT versus
FCT Choice + EXT conditions?
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Session
Man
ds p
er M
inut
e
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?
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41Sessions
Com
bine
d In
appr
opria
te p
er m
inut
eControlInterrupt InterruptFCT 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65Sessions
Com
bine
d In
appr
opria
te p
er m
inut
eControlInterrupt InterruptFCT FCT
Graph 8
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
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Session
Out
of S
eat B
ehav
ior
per
min
ute
Baseline Competing Items (CI)
CICI + TO CI + TO
9
Graph 9
ABAB
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, & headbangingAggression: 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
0
20
40
60
80
100
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
SESSIONS
PE
RC
EN
T O
F A
PP
RO
PR
IAT
E IN
- S
EA
T B
EH
AV
IOR
NCR + EXT
Baseline
10
Graph 10
EVALUATE DESIGN Meets design standardMeets with ReservationDoes not meet design std.
EVALUATE EVIDENCEStrongModerateNo Evidence
1 Meets
2 Meets with Reservation
3 Does not meet
4a Does not meet
4b Meets
5a Meets
5b Meets
6 Meets
7a Does not meet
7b FCT-NCR (meets)FCT-BL (does not meet)
8 Does not meet
9 Meets
10 Meets
Queries