Basing assessment and treatment of problem behavior on behavioral momentum theory: Analyses of behavioral persistence

Abstract

The connection, or bridge, between applied and basic behavior analysis has been long-established (Hake, 1982; Mace & Critchfield, 2010). In this article, we describe how clinical decisions can be based more directly on behavioral processes and how basing clinical procedures on behavioral processes can lead to improved clinical outcomes. As a case in point, we describe how applied behavior analyses of maintenance, and specifically the long-term maintenance of treatment effects related to problem behavior, can be adjusted and potentially enhanced by basing treatment on Behavioral Momentum Theory. We provide a brief review of the literature including descriptions of two translational studies that proposed changes in how differential reinforcement of alternative behavior treatments are conducted based on Behavioral Momentum Theory. We then describe current clinical examples of how these translations are continuing to impact the definitions, designs, analyses, and treatment procedures used in our clinical practice.

An evaluation of resurgence following functional communication training conducted in alternative antecedent contexts via telehealth

“…It is possible that initiating FCT treatment in alternative contexts mitigated the resurgence of problem behavior by changing the reinforcement history of appropriate behavior. If this is correct, then it would not be important to initiate treatment in an alternative context but instead to emphasize the reinforcement of appropriate behavior to alter the ratio of reinforcement of appropriate versus problem behavior (Schieltz et al, 2017). This possibility is consistent with predictions of the model of resurgence, based on BMT, proposed by Shahan and Sweeney (2011) and supported by the preliminary results of Fisher et al (2018).…”

“…As a result, differential reinforcement treatments purportedly strengthen all behavior in a given stimulus context, even those not producing the alternative reinforcers contingently. Consistent with the assumptions of BMT, differential reinforcement treatments produce target behavior that is both more persistent in the face of treatment challenges and likely to resurge following successful treatment than those not exposed to differential reinforcement treatments (see Mace et al, 2010;Nevin et al, 2017;Schieltz, Wacker, Ringdahl, & Berg, 2017). These findings suggest that behavior analysts might need to modify the way differential reinforcement treatments are implemented to improve maintenance of treatment effects.…”

“…Five of the eight children from Wacker et al (2011) were included in this analysis. Juan, Bud, and Rose were omitted from these comparisons because they were omitted from subsequent analyses in Wacker et al and/or Schieltz, Wacker, Ringdahl, and Berg (2017). All data were evaluated as proportions of the FA baseline for problem behavior because that ) was used to hierarchically evaluate the models of interest using the maximum likelihood method.…”

“…Juan, Bud, and Rose were omitted for the same reasons as described for subsequent analyses reported byWacker et al (2011) andSchieltz et al (2017). **Tina was included in the current comparison despite not reaching 90% reduction of problem behavior during the final test of resurgence.…”

The basis of behavioral momentum in the nonlinearity of strength

“…These "R-paradigms" include spontaneous recovery, renewal, reinstatement, and resurgence (Bouton, Winterbauer, & Todd, 2012). Understanding response recovery is crucial in applied settings (with current reviews available in Podlesnik, Kelley, Jimenez-Gomez, & Bouton, 2017;Schieltz, Wacker, Ringdahl, & Berg, 2017), and a good set of reference experiments available in Podlesnik and Shahan (2009). The renewed version of BMT presented here has machinery that may be able to address these phenomena.…”