Evaluating the Resurgence of Problem Behavior with Three Functionally Equivalent Discriminated Operants

Gratz, Olivia; Wilson, Alyssa N.; Glassford, Tyler S.

doi:10.1007/s40732-018-0305-0

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, across distinct context changes the magnitude of renewal (at least in the initial postchange session) does not appear to change with the introduction of subsequent novel context changes. Again, this replicates findings from the relapse literature demonstrating that the magnitude of resurgence does not consistently change with repeated exposure to the conditions that occasion it (Falligant, Hagopian, et al, 2022;Gratz et al, 2019;Volkert et al, 2009;cf., Lieving & Lattal, 2003;Marsteller & St. Peter, 2014;Podlesnik et al, 2020;Redner, 2022).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 82%

Further evidence of renewal in automatically maintained behavior

Falligant,

Kranak,

Piersma

et al. 2024

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Renewal is a relapse phenomenon that refers to the recurrence of a previously reduced behavior following a change in stimulus conditions. Muething et al. (2022) examined the phenomenology of renewal among individuals with automatically maintained challenging behavior treated at an outpatient clinic. We replicated their findings by retrospectively examining renewal across various topographies of automatically maintained behavior treated at an inpatient hospital, and we extended their work by also examining differences across subtypes of automatically maintained self‐injurious behavior. The prevalence of renewal was comparable to that observed by Muething et al., supporting the notion that automatically maintained challenging behavior is susceptible to relapse phenomena. Furthermore, renewal was twice as likely to occur for individuals with Subtype 2 versus Subtype 1 self‐injurious behavior, providing additional evidence of behavioral differentiation between subtypes. Our findings suggest that even after apparent stability in treatment, practitioners should remain vigilant for the recurrence of automatically maintained behavior during generalization.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 82%

Further evidence of renewal in automatically maintained behavior

Falligant,

Kranak,

Piersma

et al. 2024

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) or functional communication training (FCT) are effective treatments for problem behavior, but resurgence of problem behavior occurs when reinforcement for the alternative response is disrupted (e.g., Gratz, Wilson, & Glassford, 2019;Hoffman & Falcomata, 2014;Lieving, Hagopian, Long, & O'Connor, 2004;Marstellar & St. Peter, 2014;Neely, Graber, Kunnavatana, & Cantrell, 2019;Volkert, Lerman, Call, & Trosclair-Lasserre, 2009;Wacker et al, 2013). Behavioral treatments are effective for producing initial reductions in problem behavior; however, relapse after treatment is common and a major barrier to treatment efficacy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Behavioral treatments are effective for producing initial reductions in problem behavior; however, relapse after treatment is common and a major barrier to treatment efficacy. For example, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) or functional communication training (FCT) are effective treatments for problem behavior, but resurgence of problem behavior occurs when reinforcement for the alternative response is disrupted (e.g., Gratz, Wilson, & Glassford, 2019;Hoffman & Falcomata, 2014;Lieving, Hagopian, Long, & O'Connor, 2004;Marstellar & St. Peter, 2014;Neely, Graber, Kunnavatana, & Cantrell, 2019;Volkert, Lerman, Call, & Trosclair-Lasserre, 2009;Wacker et al, 2013). Most research into relapse processes in clinical settings attempts to translate methods developed in studies of extinction learning (e.g., Liddon, Kelley, Rey, Liggett, & Ribeiro, 2018), even though extinction alone is rarely used as a technique to eliminate behavior in clinical settings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relapse of operant behavior after response elimination with an extinction or an omission contingency

Rey

Thrailkill

Goldberg

et al. 2019

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study compared relapse after responding was eliminated by extinction or omission training in rats. In Experiment 1, lever pressing was reinforced with food pellets in Context A and then eliminated with either extinction or omission training in Context B. The response was then tested in Contexts A and B in either the presence or absence of free food pellets delivered on a random time schedule. All rats showed higher responding when tested in Context A than Context B, and there was little evidence that omission training attenuated this ABA renewal effect. Noncontingent pellets increased responding after extinction but not after omission. However, when responding on the last day of response elimination was compared to responding during the test in the response-elimination context, there was some evidence that omission-trained rats showed a small increase in responding even when tested with free pellets. Results of Experiment 2 suggest this increase was not due to differences in the temporal distribution of pellets during elimination and the test, and that the result might be due to mere removal of the omission contingency, but any such effect is small and difficult to detect statistically. The results provide new information about factors generating relapse after omission training.

show abstract

“…Serial training is a process by which researchers teach and then subsequently extinguish newly acquired alternative responses in sequential fashion, until all desired topographies have been established, reinforced, and eliminated (except for the final topography). Like lag schedules, serial training appears to promote variability during periods of extinction (Gratz et al, 2018; Lambert et al 2015; Lambert et al, 2017; Lambert et al, 2020; Lattal et al, 2019; Mechner & Jones, 2011; Reed & Morgan, 2006; Schmitz et al, 2019).…”

Section: Relapse‐mitigation Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relapse and its mitigation: Toward behavioral inoculation

Kimball

Greer

Fuhrman

et al. 2023

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relapse following the successful treatment of problem behavior can increase the likelihood of injury and the need for more intensive care. Current research offers some predictions of how treatment procedures may contribute to relapse, and conversely, how the risk of relapse can be mitigated. This review describes relapse-mitigation procedures with varying levels of support, the quantitative models that have influenced the research on relapse mitigation, different experimental methods for measuring relapse mitigation, and directions for future research. We propose that by viewing the implementation of relapse-mitigation procedures as a means of producing behavioral inoculation, clinicians are placed in the proactive and intentional role of exposing their client's behavior to an array of reinforcement and stimulus conditions during treatment with the goal of decreasing the detrimental impact of future treatment challenges.

show abstract

Evaluating the Resurgence of Problem Behavior with Three Functionally Equivalent Discriminated Operants

Cited by 11 publications

References 37 publications

Further evidence of renewal in automatically maintained behavior

Further evidence of renewal in automatically maintained behavior

Relapse of operant behavior after response elimination with an extinction or an omission contingency

Relapse and its mitigation: Toward behavioral inoculation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About