Some indirect effects of positive practice overcorrection

Abstract

We evaluated the effects of positive practice overcorrection (PP OC) on levels of motor stereotypy and appropriate engagement in the activity practiced during treatment with 3 young men with autism. We also measured preference for the practiced activities during preference probes to determine if these activities might acquire aversive properties as a result of the frequent pairing with PP OC. Treatment reduced motor stereotypy for all 3 participants, and engagement increased for 2 of the 3 participants. Relative preference for the activities was not disrupted by the implementation of PP OC, although overall contact with the activities decreased for 1 participant. Results from 1 participant suggest that PP OC may be less effective when stereotypy results in access to a more highly preferred activity.

An evaluation of a punisher assessment for decreasing automatically reinforced problem behavior

“…Falcomata et al () and Bartlett et al () found that NCR alone did not reduce inappropriate vocalizations and spitting, respectively, to clinically significant levels, and that the addition of response cost resulted in immediate decreases in problem behavior to near‐zero levels. Peters and Thompson () and Watkins and Rapp () found that NCR alone did not produce reductions in automatically reinforced stereotypy, whereas NCR combined with overcorrection (Peters & Thompson) or response cost (Watkins & Rapp) was effective in reducing stereotypy for all participants.…”

“…Falcomata et al (2004) and Bartlett et al (2011) found that NCR alone did not reduce inappropriate vocalizations and spitting, respectively, to clinically significant levels, and that the addition of response cost resulted in immediate decreases in problem behavior to near-zero levels. Peters and Thompson (2013) and Watkins and Rapp (2014) found that NCR alone did not produce reductions in automatically reinforced stereotypy, whereas NCR combined with overcorrection (Peters & Thompson) or response cost (Watkins & Rapp) was effective in reducing stereotypy for all participants. Differential reinforcement using an arbitrary reinforcer (e.g., an edible or leisure item) has also been found effective for treating automatically reinforced problem behavior (Ringdahl et al, 2002;Taylor, Hoch, & Weissman, 2005;Toussaint & Tiger, 2012); however, researchers have demonstrated the need for additional punishment components before clinically significant outcomes are observed (Anderson & Le, 2011;Baker et al, 2010;Mitteer, Romani, Greer, & Fisher, 2015).…”

“…Although NCR alone has been found efficacious for treating automatically reinforced problem behavior (Buchanan & Fisher, 2002;Piazza, Adelinis, Hanley, Goh, & Delia, 2000;Roscoe, Iwata, & Zhou, 2013), a number of studies have shown that the addition of a punishment procedure (e.g., response cost) was necessary to achieve clinically significant reductions (Bartlett, Rapp, Krueger, & Henrickson, 2011;DeRosa, Roane, Bishop, & Silkowski, 2016;Falcomata, Roane, Hovanetz, Kettering, & Keeney, 2004;Peters & Thompson, 2013;Watkins & Rapp, 2014). Falcomata et al (2004) and Bartlett et al (2011) found that NCR alone did not reduce inappropriate vocalizations and spitting, respectively, to clinically significant levels, and that the addition of response cost resulted in immediate decreases in problem behavior to near-zero levels.…”

“…Given that a punishment component is often necessary for treating automatically reinforced problem behavior (Anderson & Le, 2011;Bartlett et al, 2011;Falcomata et al, 2004;Peters & Thompson, 2013;Watkins & Rapp, 2014), it is important to further evaluate a systematic method for identifying and selecting potential punishers. For the purposes of this discussion we will use the term identify to refer to the process in which stimuli are suggested as potential punishers (e.g., through caregiver report, systematic assessment, etc.)…”

“…In some cases, punishing stimuli have been selected based on the topography of the target behavior (e.g., mouthwash for rumination; Baker et al, 2010). In other cases, punishing stimuli may have been selected based on previous research demonstrating the efficacy of the punishing stimulus (Ahrens, Lerman, Kodak, Worsdell, & Keegan, 2011;Bartlett et al, 2011;Peters & Thompson, 2013;Watkins & Rapp, 2014). The most notable exception is a systematic assessment for identifying potential punishers to be included in treatment reported by Fisher and colleagues (Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Hagopian, et al, 1994;Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Kurtz, et al, 1994).…”