Transcript Single-case Analysis of the Effects of Concurrent Schedules of Reinforcement on

Single-case Analysis of the Effects of
Concurrent Schedules of Reinforcement on
Problem Behavior, Requests for Breaks,
and Work Choices
Stephanie M. Peterson, Ph.D., BCBA
Presentation for Institute of Education Sciences
June, 2008
General Information

Institute of Education Sciences
– Serious Behavior Disorders Competition
– Goal 2: Develop a new intervention
Award #R324B060013
 $ 515,384 over 3 years

– August, 2006 - July, 2009
A Big Thank You to My
Research Staff

Project Coordinator
– Jessica Frieder, M.A., BCBA

Graduate Research Assistants
– Shawn Quigley
– Shilo Smith
– Carrie Brower-Breitweiser, M.A.

Volunteers
–
–
–
–
Pete Molino, M.A., BCBA
Heath Ivers
Stuart Mullins
Sally Huskinson
Functions of Problem Behavior

Socially-mediated Functions
– Gain (positive reinforcement: get attention,
tangibles)
– Escape (negative reinforcement: get out of
difficult tasks, nonpreferred activities)

Non-socially-mediated Functions
– Gain (positive automatic reinforcement: get
sensory stimulation)
– Escape (negative automatic reinforcement: get
out of sensory stimulation)
Escape-motivated Problem
Behavior

Most common motivation for problem
behavior in individuals with developmental
disabilities (Derby et al., 1992; Iwata et al.,
1994)
Potential Treatments for Escapemotivated Problem Behavior

Eliminate task demands altogether
– Most obvious and direct treatment (Smith & Iwata,
1997)
– Limits skill development

Functional communication training (FCT)
– Teaches a new skill (communication) and effectively
reduces problem behavior (Carr & Durand, 1985;
Derby et al., 1997; Durand & Carr, 1991; Marcus &
Vollmer, 1995)
– Often results in escaping tasks altogether (Marcus &
Vollmer, 1995)
Potential Treatments for Escapemotivated Problem Behavior

Englemann & Colvin (1985)
– Responding to instructional requests is critical
foundational-level skill for completing higherlevel instructional tasks

Interventions are needed that teach
individuals to complete instructional tasks
rather than eliminating task demands
Potential Treatments for Escapemotivated Problem Behavior

Stimulus Fading/DRA
– Initially decrease task demands and slowly increase
them over time
– Reinforcement (task breaks) provided for task
completion
– Extinction (withholding breaks) for problem behavior


Can be effective in decreasing problem behavior
and increasing task compliance
Bursts of problem behavior often occur as task
demands increase (Lalli, Casey, & Kates, 1995;
Zarcone et al., 1994)
A New Intervention is Needed

Intervention that capitalizes on the strengths
of
– FCT: rapid and reliable decreases in problem
behavior
– Stimulus fading: encourages task completion

Intervention that ameliorates the negative
effects of
– FCT: allows continuous escape
– Stimulus fading: requires the use of extinction
due to extinction bursts
A New Intervention is Needed

Combine FCT and Stimulus Fading while
simultaneously eliminating Extinction
– First, teach communicative response
– Reduce task demands
– Slowly increase task demands while also allowing
break requests
– Problem behavior continues to produce reinforcement
(task breaks)

This creates a three-choice context: Task
compliance, break request, problem behavior
Choice Context
Prompt to complete a difficult task
Complete Task
Mand
Problem Behavior
All produce reinforcement = break
How can we bias
responding in favor of
task completion?
How can we bias
responding in favor of
mands?
How can we bias
responding away from
problem behavior?
Factors That Influence Choices
Schedule of reinforcement
 Delay to reinforcement
 Effort to obtain reinforcement
 Quality of reinforcement

Research on Choice Making

Research on competing schedules of
reinforcement as treatment for problem behavior
– Peck et al. (1996)
• Higher quality reinforcement for communication responses
effectively competed with lower quality reinforcement for
problem behavior
– Extensions by Piazza et al. (1997) and Harding et al.
(1999)
– Supports the use of choice making as part of treatment
for escape-motivated problem behavior
Research on Choice Making

Most, if not all, research on competing
schedules of reinforcement involves choices
between two responses:
– Two sets of math problems (Mace et al. 1994;
Neef et al., 1992; Neef et al., 1994)
– Communication responses vs. problem
behavior (Horner & Day, 1991; Peck et al.,
1996)
– Work completion vs. problem behavior (Hoch
et al., 2002; Lalli et al., 1999)
Research Question #1

When compliance to task requests, mands,
and problem behavior are concurrently
available response alternatives, will
providing different reinforcement qualities
for each response alternative bias
responding in favor of the adaptive response
alternatives?
Research Question #2

Given that various dimensions of reinforcement
can be arranged to increase adaptive responding
(e.g., task compliance, mands) over problem
behavior, are there differential effects of stimulus
fading when only 2 response options receive
reinforcement (i.e., compliance and problem
behavior) versus when 3 response options receive
reinforcement (i.e., compliance, mands, and
problem behavior)?
Research Sites/Participants

Research Sites
– Three school districts in Idaho
– One rural, high Hispanic population
– Two “urban”

Participants
– 12-18 participants per year across the three research
sites
– K-6 grades; 6-12 years of age
– Disabilities and chronic and significant problem
behavior
Dependent Variables and
Measurement

Choices (Event recording)
– First behavior that occurs after a choice opportunity (i.e., “Time to work.
What do you want to do?”)
– Touch work or break card
– Engage in problem behavior

Session Problem behavior (10-s interval)
– Defined individually for each participant
• Aggression
• Noncompliance
• Destruction
• Self-injurious behavior

Task engagement (10-s interval)
– Looking at, manipulating task materials
– Looking at experimenter while giving instructions
Case Example: Damon
8 years old
 Diagnosed with mental disability
 Limited verbal abilities
 Problem behaviors: leaving the task area,
verbal refusals to complete work,
destruction of materials (e.g., ripping paper,
throwing pencils), aggression (e.g., hitting)

Preliminary Assessments

Functional Behavior Analysis
–
–
–
–
Interview
Observations of classroom routine
Experimental functional analysis
Escape must be at least one function of problem
behavior
Preliminary Assessments

Functional Communication Training
– Teach participants to touch a card to request a break
– Participants must demonstrate 100% independence with
break card touching and less than 10% problem
behavior
Choice Analysis


Research Question #1
When compliance to task requests, mands, and
problem behavior are concurrently available
response alternatives, will providing different
reinforcement qualities for each response
alternative bias responding in favor of the adaptive
response alternatives?
Choice Analysis
Prompt to complete a difficult task
Complete Task
Mand
Highest
Quality/Duration
(1 min) Break
Medium
Quality/Duration
(30 s) Break
Highest Probability
Moderate Probability
Problem Behavior
Lowest
Quality/Duration
(10 s) Break
Lowest Probability
Stimulus Fading Analysis


Research Question 2
Given that various dimensions of reinforcement
can be arranged to increase adaptive responding
(e.g., task compliance, mands) over problem
behavior, are there differential effects of stimulus
fading when only 2 response options receive
reinforcement (i.e., compliance and problem
behavior) versus when 3 response options receive
reinforcement (i.e., compliance, mands, and
problem behavior)?
Stimulus Fading 2-Choice
Prompt to complete a difficult task
Complete
Increasingly Difficult
Task
Highest
Quality/Duration
(1 min) Break
Highest Probability?
Problem Behavior
Lowest
Quality/Duration
(10 s) Break
Lowest Probability?
Stimulus Fading Analysis
Prompt to complete a difficult task
Complete
Increasingly Difficult
Task
Mand
Highest
Quality/Duration
(1 min) Break
Medium
Quality/Duration
(30 s) Break
Highest Probability?
Moderate Probability?
Problem Behavior
Lowest
Quality/Duration
(10 s) Break
Lowest Probability?
Summary Question #1

Participant’s choices are sensitive to
varying qualities of reinforcement in
context of three choices
– Work
– Break
– Problem behavior

When they don’t have to actually complete
work
Summary Question #2

As task requirements increase, choices shift
– More break choices
– More problem behavior choices, but not many
– Results are inconsistent

Gives rise to new questions
– Do we need to increase reinforcement for work choice
as task requirements increase?
– Does everyone need 3-choice
– How can we predict who needs the 3-choice
intervention?
– Sequence effects?
Contact Information

For more information, contact
– Stephanie M. Peterson, Ph.D., BCBA
– [email protected]
– 208-282-3552

Thank you for your attention!