Functional Analysis and Treatment of Destructive Behavior Maintained by Termination of “Don't” (And Symmetrical “Do”) Requests

Repetitive behaviors such as excessive straightening are commonly observed among individuals with autism. Attempts to prevent these behaviors may increase the likelihood of other problem behaviors. The present study was designed to assess and treat the excessive straightening and associated destructive behaviors of a 16-year-old boy who had been diagnosed with autism and moderate mental retardation. Following a series of functional analyses, an intervention that incorporated functional communication, extinction of destructive behavior, and blocking of repetitive straightening was demonstrated to be effective in reducing straightening and destructive behavior.

Section: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment and Treatment of Excessive Straightening and Destructive Behavior in an Adolescent Diagnosed With Autism

Kuhn

Hardesty

Sweeney

2009

“…However, the variables that we were interested in measuring were primarily influenced by developments in effective prompting and differential reinforcement strategies derived from the empirical literature on the treatment of noncompliance and escape-maintained problem behavior. From this literature, we identified the following strategies that appeared to be relevant to the treatment of compliance in classrooms: integral directive prompting (often referred to as three-step prompting; Horner & Keilitz, 1975;Iwata, Pace, Kalsher, Cowdery, & Cataldo, 1990), embedding prompts in preferred activities (Carr, Newsom, & Binkoff, 1980;, framing instructions as ''do'' commands as opposed to ''don't'' commands (Adelinis & Hagopian, 1999;Fisher, Adelinis, Thompson, Worsdell, & Zarcone, 1998;Neef, Shafer, Egel, Cataldo, & Parrish, 1983), eliminating escape from instructions by continuing prompting until the task is completed (also known as escape extinction; Iwata, Pace, Cowdery, & Miltenberger, 1994;Iwata et al, 1990;Zarcone et al, 1993), and providing social positive and negative reinforcers for compliance (Lalli et al, 1999;Parrish, Cataldo, Kolko, Neef, & Egel, 1986;.…”

Section: ____________________________________________________________mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Descriptive Assessment of Instruction‐based Interactions in the Preschool Classroom

Ndoro

Hanley

Tiger

et al. 2006

The current study describes preschool teacher-child interactions during several commonly scheduled classroom activities in which teachers deliver instructions. An observation system was developed that incorporated measurement of evidence-based compliance strategies and included the types of instructions delivered (e.g., integral or deficient directives, embedded directives, ''do'' or ''don't'' commands), the children's behavior with respect to the instructions (e.g., compliance, noncompliance, active avoidance, problem behavior), and the differential responses of the teacher to the child's behavior following an instruction (e.g., appropriate or inappropriate provision of attention and escape). After 4 classroom teachers were observed at least five times in each of five target activities, simple and conditional probabilities were calculated. Results indicated that (a) the frequency of instruction and probability of compliance varied as a function of activity type, (b) ''do'' commands and directive prompts were delivered almost to the exclusion of ''don't'' commands and nondirective prompts, (c) the likelihood of compliance was highest following an embedded or an integral directive prompt, and (d) although putative social reinforcers were more likely to follow noncompliance than compliance and were highly likely following problem behavior, compliance occurred over twice as much as noncompliance, and problem behavior during instructions was very low. Implications for using descriptive assessments for understanding and improving teacher-child interactions in the preschool classroom are discussed.

“…Functional analyses consisted of an alone or an ignore condition (specific to each participant), attention, demand, tangible, and toy play conditions. In addition, analyses included a ''do'' requests condition for Brent (similar to that described by Fisher, Adelinis, Thompson, Worsdell, & Zarcone, 1998) and a modified tangible condition for Jason. During pairwise analyses for Brent and Jason, test conditions were compared to control conditions via sequential presentations .…”

Section: Phase 1: Functional Analysis Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Dense‐to‐lean and Fixed Lean Schedules of Alternative Reinforcement and Extinction

Hagopian

Toole

Long

et al. 2004

Behavior-reduction interventions typically employ dense schedules of alternative reinforcement in conjunction with operant extinction for problem behavior. After problem behavior is reduced in the initial treatment stages, schedule thinning is routinely conducted to make the intervention more practical in natural environments. In the current investigation, two methods for thinning alternative reinforcement schedules were compared for 3 clients who exhibited severe problem behavior. In the dense-to-lean (DTL) condition, reinforcement was delivered on relatively dense schedules (using noncontingent reinforcement for 1 participant and functional communication training for 2 participants), followed by systematic schedule thinning to progressively leaner schedules. During the fixed lean (FL) condition, reinforcement was delivered on lean schedules (equivalent to the terminal schedule of the DTL condition). The FL condition produced a quicker attainment of individual treatment goals for 2 of the 3 participants. The results are discussed in terms of the potential utility of using relatively lean schedules at treatment outset.