Generalization and maintenance of the reduction of self-injurious behavior maintained by two types of reinforcement

715

505

Data are summarized from 152 single-subject analyses of the reinforcing functions of self-injurious behavior (SIB). Individuals with developmental disabilities referred for assessment and/or treatment over an 11-year period were exposed to a series of conditions in which the effects of antecedent and consequent events on SIB were examined systematically by way ofmultielement, reversal, or combined designs. Shook, Keith Slifer, and G. Linden Thorn for the special panel concluded that, although much is known about SIB at the present time, thorough understanding and eventual reduction in the frequency of SIB will require continued research on all aspects of the disorder, induding prevalence, etiology, treatment, and prevention.In an attempt to define the general parameters of SIB as a clinical disorder, a number of investigators have conducted group surveys using methods roles they played in developing or maintaining the clinical environments that accommodated this research. Michael Dorsey is now at the South Bay

Section: Multiple Controlling Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Functions of Self‐injurious Behavior: An Experimental‐epidemiological Analysis

Iwata

Pace

Dorsey

et al. 1994

715

505

“…A second strategy, fading, produces more durable effects by physically altering stimuli or re-161 1994,27,161-170 NUMBER I (SPRING 1994 moving and gradually reintroducing them over time (Heidorn & Jensen, 1984;Pace, Iwata, Cowdery, Andree, & McIntyre, 1993;Touchette, MacDonald, & Langer, 1985;Weeks & Gaylord-Ross, 1981). Fading along the dimension of task difficulty has been accomplished by altering the physical characteristics of stimuli to achieve criterion performances (Weeks & Gaylord-Ross, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fading along the dimension of task difficulty has been accomplished by altering the physical characteristics of stimuli to achieve criterion performances (Weeks & Gaylord-Ross, 1981). Another approach has been to fade in stimuli along the dimension of rate (Heidorn & Jensen, 1984;Pace et al, 1993;Touchette et al, 1985). However, a concern related to using fading alone is that no procedure is in effect to suppress problem behavior if it reoccurs during fading (Pace et al, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulating Antecedent Conditions to Alter the Stimulus Control of Problem Behavior

Kennedy

1994

In a three-phase study, antecedent conditions involving instructor's task demands and social comments were evaluated for 3 students with severe disabilities who emitted problem behavior. The results of a descriptive analysis (Phase 1) demonstrated that task demands served as antecedents for problem behavior, and social comments were generally associated with increased levels of positive social affect. In a subsequent experimental analysis (Phase 2), an instructor emitted high rates of social comments and gradually faded in task demands across sessions. The results of Phase 2 showed initial reductions in problem behavior to near-zero levels from the onset of intervention, with the successful reintroduction of task demands for all students. Phase 3 replicated the procedures of Phase 1. The results demonstrated that for 2 students, task demands no longer served as antecedents to problem behavior. The outcomes from two social validity assessments indicated that substantial improvements were perceived in student behavior and that the independent variable was a socially acceptable means of reducing problem behavior.

“…Skinner (1953) proposed the term multiple control to describe the common behavioral effect of two or more operations. Cases of multiply controlled behavior disorders appear rarely in the literature (see Carr & Durand, 1985;Day, Rea, Schussler, Larsen, & Johnson, 1988;Heidorn &Jensen, 1984;and Mace, Webb, Sharkey, Mattson, & Rosen, 1988; for possible exceptions); however, this is probably a function of the difficulty in dearly documenting the influence of multiple control rather than a low prevalence.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Heidorn and Jensen (1984) presented a case study of a subject's SIB that apparently was controlled by positive reinforcement (attention), negative reinforcement (escape from tasks), and "physiological disturbances." However, the absence of controlled assessment data and the combined use of treatment procedures that would have had similar effects across SIB functions limited the strength of their conclusion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Analysis and Treatment of Multiply Controlled Self‐injury

Smith

Iwata

Vollmer

et al. 1993

111

A functional analysis of the self-injurious behavior (SIB) of 3 adults with profound developmental disabilities showed that each engaged in SIB in more than one assessment condition. Such outcomes may result from a failure to isolate the variable maintaining SIB, or they may reflect multiple sources of control over SIB. In order to identify more dearly the determinants of SIB, each subject was exposed to a series of treatments appropriate to one or both of the apparent functions of SIB. These treatments, applied sequentially on baselines appropriate to each behavioral function, identified the maintaining variables for SIB through differential outcomes across baselines. Results indicated that the SIB of 2 subjects was multiply controlled, confirming the outcomes of the functional analysis. However, the SIB of the 3rd subject was eliminated using a treatment designed for a single function, suggesting spurious results of the original assessment. Alternative interpretations of undifferentiated assessment data are discussed, as are analysis and treatment issues related to multiply determined behavior disorders.