Treatment of Self‐injury and Hand Mouthing Following Inconclusive Functional Analyses

Abstract

Numerous studies have used functional analyses to prescribe interventions for severe behavior disorders. The majority of these studies have focused on behavior that is dearly maintained by socially mediated reinforcement, such as contingent access to attention, tangibles, or escape from instructional demands. However, a significant proportion of functional analyses do not yield conclusive results. We examined interventions for 3 children with severe disabilities following incondusive functional analyses. First, preferred stimuli were identified for each child via a stimulus preference assessment. Second, a functional analysis was conducted for 2 of the 3 children. High rates of aberrant behavior were seen even (if not especially) in no-interaction sessions. The 3rd child was observed for several consecutive no-interaction sessions; behavior persisted in this condition. Third, interventions based on environmental enrichment were analyzed in an analogue setting. For all of the children, environmental enrichment decreased aberrant behavior if preferred stimuli were used in the procedure. To obtain further reductions in aberrant behavior, explicit reinforcement of toy play was required for 2 children, and a brief (5-s) time-out was necessary with 1 child. yses have proven to be successful, the generality of the current literature may be limited because most studies have focused on behavior that is clearly maintained by socially mediated reinforcement (e.g., attention, tangible reinforcement, or escape from instructions). In an epidemiological analysis, Iwata et al. (1994) reported that approximately 5% of their functional analyses of self-injurious behavior were incondusive, and more than 25% did not show a sensitivity to socially mediated reinforcement; Derby et al. (1992) reported that 34% of their clients displayed aberrant behavior that appeared to be maintained by automatic sensory consequences. Despite these data, disproportionately few studies have focused on the treatment of behavior disorders following undifferentiated results of functional analyses.The focus on interventions for behavior maintained by socially mediated reinforcement may be because an experimenter or clinician can control social contingencies. For example, if a behavior is maintained by attention, the environment can be arranged so that attention is withheld or delivered at the experimenter's discretion (e.g., Vollmer, Iwa-331 1994) 279 331-344 NUMBER2 (summER 1994)

Practical Implications of Data Reliability and Treatment Integrity Monitoring

“…In the case of treatment integrity, it is possible that poor treatment effects are not due to a poor treatment per se, but due to a treatment that is not being implemented sufficiently. Figure 1 shows a hypothetical example of using integrity measures to determine a need for booster training (for an actual example, see Vollmer, Marcus, & LeBlanc, 1994). Thus, a behavior analyst should be equipped with both reliability and treatment integrity data whenever critical clinical decisions are being made.…”

A Review and Treatment Selection Model for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities Who Engage in Inappropriate Sexual Behavior

“…Previous research supports the use of noncontingent reinforcement via reinforcement of preferred object manipulation to decrease other topographies of automatically maintained challenging behavior (Britton et al 2002;Lindberg et al 2003). Antecedent manipulations, specifically environmental enrichment, have demonstrated success in the reduction of automatically maintained problem behavior as well (Piazza et al 2000;Rapp and Vollmer, 2005;Vollmer et al 1994). The availability of preferred stimuli may indirectly compete with the reinforcement provided by automatically maintained ISB, thereby reducing the frequency of ISB.…”

Integrating Basic and Applied Research and the Utility of Lattal and Perone's Handbook of Research Methods in Human Operant Behavior

“…Research might examine dimensions of the contingencies operating in the class or home (e.g., rate, quality, response effort) that influence whether or not a student chooses to manipulate materials, engage in activities, and talk to people, all of which would be available to facilitate learning new skills (e.g., Favell & McGimsey, 1993;R. D. Horner, 1980;Vollmer, Marcus, & LeBlanc, 1994).…”

“…14), Hackenberg also raises interesting research possibilities involving the verbal behavior of the participants, including the effects of instructions on optimal performance. Like college students performing laboratory tasks (Hackenberg & Joker, 1994), young children and individuals with intellectual disabilities may not always behave optimally (e.g., R. D. Horner, 1980;Vollmer et al, 1994). For example, when performing tasks like arithmetic and handwriting, a student may be indifferent to favorable and unfavorable reinforcement contingencies (e.g., more or less frequent reinforcers; greater or fewer reinforcers) unless supplemental interventions are used Neef et al, 1992).…”