An Initial Evaluation of a Concurrent Operant Analysis Framework to Identify Reinforcers for Work Completion

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Behavioral Disorders Pub Date : 2020-02-01 DOI:10.1177/0198742919837647
B. Lloyd, Kayla R. Randall, Emily S. Weaver, Johanna L. Staubitz, Naomi Parikh
{"title":"An Initial Evaluation of a Concurrent Operant Analysis Framework to Identify Reinforcers for Work Completion","authors":"B. Lloyd, Kayla R. Randall, Emily S. Weaver, Johanna L. Staubitz, Naomi Parikh","doi":"10.1177/0198742919837647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although functional analysis is a powerful tool for testing the function of challenging behavior, it is not always feasible or appropriate to include as a component of functional behavior assessment (FBA). Alternative experimental analysis methods are needed to inform individualized interventions in schools, particularly for students who engage in passive forms of problem behavior. We evaluated a concurrent operant analysis (COA) framework to identify reinforcers for appropriate replacement behaviors for four students referred for FBA and reported by teachers to engage in low levels of work completion. After completing two COAs per student (researcher-as-therapist and teacher-as-therapist), we used alternating treatments designs to compare the effects of an intervention matched with COA outcomes to intervention conditions that were not matched to COA outcomes on levels of work completion and task engagement. COA outcomes corresponded across therapists for three of four participants and intervention results validated COA outcomes for two of these participants. Although results of this initial investigation seem promising, more research on COA frameworks is needed to determine their utility to guide reinforcement-based interventions in schools.","PeriodicalId":47249,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Disorders","volume":"45 1","pages":"102 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0198742919837647","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742919837647","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Although functional analysis is a powerful tool for testing the function of challenging behavior, it is not always feasible or appropriate to include as a component of functional behavior assessment (FBA). Alternative experimental analysis methods are needed to inform individualized interventions in schools, particularly for students who engage in passive forms of problem behavior. We evaluated a concurrent operant analysis (COA) framework to identify reinforcers for appropriate replacement behaviors for four students referred for FBA and reported by teachers to engage in low levels of work completion. After completing two COAs per student (researcher-as-therapist and teacher-as-therapist), we used alternating treatments designs to compare the effects of an intervention matched with COA outcomes to intervention conditions that were not matched to COA outcomes on levels of work completion and task engagement. COA outcomes corresponded across therapists for three of four participants and intervention results validated COA outcomes for two of these participants. Although results of this initial investigation seem promising, more research on COA frameworks is needed to determine their utility to guide reinforcement-based interventions in schools.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于识别工作完成的增强因素的并行操作分析框架的初步评估
虽然功能分析是测试挑战性行为功能的有力工具,但将其作为功能行为评估(FBA)的组成部分并不总是可行或合适的。需要替代的实验分析方法来为学校的个性化干预提供信息,特别是对那些从事被动问题行为的学生。我们评估了并发操作分析(COA)框架,以确定四名教师报告的低完成度FBA学生适当替代行为的强化因素。在每个学生完成两次COA(研究者作为治疗师和教师作为治疗师)后,我们使用交替治疗设计来比较与COA结果匹配的干预条件与与COA结果不匹配的干预条件在工作完成和任务参与水平上的影响。四名参与者中有三名治疗师的COA结果相对应,干预结果证实了其中两名参与者的COA结果。虽然这一初步调查的结果似乎很有希望,但需要对COA框架进行更多的研究,以确定它们在指导学校强化干预方面的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Behavioral Disorders is sent to all members of the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (CCBD), a division of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). All CCBD members must first be members of CEC.
期刊最新文献
A Reanalysis: SRSS-IE Internalizing Cut Scores to Support Data-Informed Decision-Making Efforts in Elementary Schools Improving Persuasive Writing Outcomes With Technology for Students in an Alternative Special Education Program An Analysis of SRSS-IE Externalizing Cut Scores to Facilitate Data-Informed Decision-Making in K–12 Schools Disability Status and Early Suicide Risk Among Children With and Without a History of Suspensions/Expulsions Kuwaiti Teachers’ Classroom Behavior Management Practices, Experiences, and Beliefs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1