Abatement of intractable vocal stereotypy using an overcorrection procedure

Abstract

We conducted a series of reversals to compare the effects of four different treatments on vocal stereotypy emitted by a 7-year-old boy with autism. The results showed that (1) the level of vocal stereotypy decreased during exposure to matched stimulation but returned to high levels immediately upon its removal; (2) stereotypy did not significantly decrease during differential reinforcement of other behavior; and (3) contingent withdrawal of movies and music (i.e., response cost) was only moderately effective. However, positive practice overcorrection decreased vocal stereotypy by clinically significant levels. Further, when differential reinforcement of engagement in a Lego ® building task was implemented, the level of engagement was significantly higher when positive practice overcorrection was in place than when overcorrection was withdrawn.

An evaluation of a punisher assessment for decreasing automatically reinforced problem behavior

“…In addition to measuring automatically reinforced problem behavior, we also measured appropriate item engagement and found higher levels of appropriate item engagement when punishment was included in treatment, compared to reinforcement‐only procedures. These results are similar to those found by other researchers (Anderson & Le, ; Mitteer et al, ). For example, Anderson and Le () used a positive practice overcorrection procedure to decrease vocal stereotypy and found high levels of appropriate play when overcorrection was combined with DRA.…”

“…These results are similar to those found by other researchers (Anderson & Le, ; Mitteer et al, ). For example, Anderson and Le () used a positive practice overcorrection procedure to decrease vocal stereotypy and found high levels of appropriate play when overcorrection was combined with DRA. Overcorrection was then removed from the intervention and appropriate play decreased to near‐zero levels, suggesting that the punishment component was necessary to sustain high levels of appropriate play.…”

“…Differential reinforcement using an arbitrary reinforcer (e.g., an edible or leisure item) has also been found effective for treating automatically reinforced problem behavior (Ringdahl et al, ; Taylor, Hoch, & Weissman, ; Toussaint & Tiger, ); however, researchers have demonstrated the need for additional punishment components before clinically significant outcomes are observed (Anderson & Le, ; Baker et al, ; Mitteer, Romani, Greer, & Fisher, ). Anderson and Le () found that DRO alone (i.e., delivery of preferred edible and video contingent on the absence of stereotypy for a specified duration) was ineffective in decreasing stereotypy. When implementing overcorrection, stereotypy decreased to clinically significant levels.…”

“…Peters and Thompson (2013) and Watkins and Rapp (2014) found that NCR alone did not produce reductions in automatically reinforced stereotypy, whereas NCR combined with overcorrection (Peters & Thompson) or response cost (Watkins & Rapp) was effective in reducing stereotypy for all participants. Differential reinforcement using an arbitrary reinforcer (e.g., an edible or leisure item) has also been found effective for treating automatically reinforced problem behavior (Ringdahl et al, 2002;Taylor, Hoch, & Weissman, 2005;Toussaint & Tiger, 2012); however, researchers have demonstrated the need for additional punishment components before clinically significant outcomes are observed (Anderson & Le, 2011;Baker et al, 2010;Mitteer, Romani, Greer, & Fisher, 2015). Anderson and Le (2011) found that DRO alone (i.e., delivery of preferred edible and video contingent on the absence of stereotypy for a specified duration) was ineffective in decreasing stereotypy.…”

“…Given that a punishment component is often necessary for treating automatically reinforced problem behavior (Anderson & Le, 2011;Bartlett et al, 2011;Falcomata et al, 2004;Peters & Thompson, 2013;Watkins & Rapp, 2014), it is important to further evaluate a systematic method for identifying and selecting potential punishers. For the purposes of this discussion we will use the term identify to refer to the process in which stimuli are suggested as potential punishers (e.g., through caregiver report, systematic assessment, etc.)…”