Transcript Denying Access to Computers

An Evaluation of Three Methods of
Denying Access to Computers to a
Person with Learning Disabilities
Duncan Pritchard
Aran Hall School
Marguerite Hoerger
Bangor University
Annette Ikin, Jane Kochy, Karen Thomas
& Heather Penney
Aran Hall School
F. Charles Mace
Nova Southeastern University
[email protected]
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 escapemaintained 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’
Intervention B & C 1
Baseline 2
Percentage of 10-s Intervals
Baseline 1
Sessions
Intervention B & C 2
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
500
Latency (s) to First Occurrence
765
Hits objects
Aggression
Flops on floor
400
300
200
100
0
Session 1: Reinforce
Hits Objects
Session 2: Reinforce
Aggression
Session 3: Reinforce
Flops on Floor
Sessions
Session 4: Extinction
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.”
35
Baseline 1
Intervention B & C 1
Baseline 2
Intervention B & C 2
Percentage of 10-s Intervals
30
25
Hits Object
Aggression
Flops to Floor
20
15
10
5
0
A
A
A
A
B
C
C
B
B
C
C
B
B
C
A
A
A
A
Sessions / Experimental Conditions
C
B
B
C
C
B
B
C
C
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
References
Adelinis, 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 attentionmaintained 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 Pritchard
Aran Hall School
Marguerite Hoerger
Bangor University
Annette Ikin, Jane Kochy, Karen Thomas
& Heather Penney
Aran Hall School
F. Charles Mace
Nova Southeastern University
[email protected]