Caregiver preference for reinforcement‐based interventions for problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement

Abstract

Social validity of behavioral interventions typically is assessed with indirect methods or by determining preferences of the individuals who receive treatment, and direct observation of caregiver preference rarely is described. In this study, preferences of 5 caregivers were determined via a concurrent-chains procedure. Caregivers were neurotypical, and children had been diagnosed with developmental disabilities and engaged in problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement. Caregivers were taught to implement noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), and the caregivers selected interventions to implement during sessions with the child after they had demonstrated proficiency in implementing the interventions. Three caregivers preferred DRA, 1 caregiver preferred differential reinforcement procedures, and 1 caregiver did not exhibit a preference. Direct observation of implementation in concurrent-chains procedures may allow the identification of interventions that are implemented with sufficient integrity and preferred by caregivers.

An evaluation of parent preference for prompting procedures

“…In summary, the results of the present investigation and previous research (e.g., Gabor et al, 2016) suggest that clinicians should not rely solely on indirect acceptability measures of interventions. If the terminal goal of identification and use of a prompting procedure with a client is for the parent to implement the intervention, clinicians should use direct measures and collect objective data on preference for and acceptability of procedures after the parent has opportunities to implement the procedure in the natural environment with the learner.…”

“…One parent, Mrs. Davis, required brief retraining for the experience sessions, and she completed three experience sessions with her child for each condition prior to moving into choice sessions. Similar to Gabor et al (2016), parent choice of prompting procedures was the primary dependent variable. Therefore, we omitted data on BST and experience sessions; these data are available from the first author, upon request.…”

“…These experience sessions served as a variation of forced-choice exposure trials, as they were additional practice opportunities with the child prior to the concurrent-chains arrangement. Consistent with Gabor et al (2016), prior to and during sessions, parents continued to have access to instruction cards that described the prompting procedure. The experimenter did not interact with the parent or child during experience sessions except to observe and collect data.…”

“…Preference has been evaluated in a variety of ways such as through preference assessments (e.g., multiple-stimulus without replacement; DeLeon & Iwata, 1996) and concurrent-chains arrangements (Herrnstein, 1964). It has been suggested that training parents or teachers on multiple interventions may lead to the selection of a procedure that they will use when an experimenter or clinician is no longer present (e.g., outside the clinical setting; Gabor, Fritz, Roath, Rothe & Gourley, 2016;Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Contrucci Kuhn, 2004). Gabor et al (2016) evaluated acceptability of and preference for function-based treatments for problem behavior.…”

“…It has been suggested that training parents or teachers on multiple interventions may lead to the selection of a procedure that they will use when an experimenter or clinician is no longer present (e.g., outside the clinical setting; Gabor, Fritz, Roath, Rothe & Gourley, 2016;Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Contrucci Kuhn, 2004). Gabor et al (2016) evaluated acceptability of and preference for function-based treatments for problem behavior. Parent training consisted of behavioral skills training (BST).…”