Perspectives on Behavior Science最新文献

This commentary on the task force report addresses the complex issues involved in autonomy, beneficence, liberty, and consent, which are often in competition in this and many other treatment issues for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, especially those with limited vocal/verbal repertoires. The issues at hand are multifaceted, and behavior analysts should be aware there is much we do not know enough about. As good scientists, it is important to maintain an attitude of philosophic doubt and endeavor to deepen understanding.

In this article, the authors provide their response to the Association for Behavior Analysis International (2022) position statement on the use of contingent electric skin shock (CESS). In this response, we address concerns raised by the task force regarding limitations of the Zarcone et al. (2020) review article in which both methodological and ethical concerns were raised about the quality of research in the use of CESS with people with disabilities in the treatment of challenging behavior. We note that with the exception of the Judge Rotenberg Center in Massachusetts, no state or country currently supports the use of CESS as it is not recognized as the standard of care in any other program, school, or facility.

Prior to the ABAI member vote to decide between two alternative position statements on contingent electric skin shock (CESS), the current authors helped draft a consensus statement supporting the abolition of CESS. In this commentary, we provide additional, supporting information for that consensus statement by (1) showing that the extant literature does not support the supposition that CESS is more efficacious than less-intrusive interventions; (2) providing data showing that implementing interventions that are less intrusive than CESS does not lead to overreliance on the use of physical or mechanical restraint to control destructive behavior; and (3) discussing the ethical and public relations issues that arise when behavior analysts use painful skin shock to reduce destructive behavior in persons with autism or intellectual disability.

Evidence presented in the ABAI Task Force Report on Contingent Electric Skin Shock (CESS) revealed serious ethical, clinical, and practical problems with the contemporary use of CESS. As a member of the task force, I ultimately concluded that our recommended position statement ("Position A") was a misguided attempt to uphold the field's commitment to client choice. Furthermore, information gathered by the task force supports an urgent call to find solutions to two additional troubling issues: a severe shortage of treatment services for severe problem behavior and the near-absence of research on treatment-resistant behavior. In this commentary, I discuss reasons Position A was not a tenable stance and why we must do better to help our most vulnerable clients.

Intractable self-injury, aggressive, and other destructive behaviors are real human conditions. Contingent electric skin shock (CESS) is a technology, based on behavior-analytic principles, used to ameliorate such behaviors. However, CESS has always been extraordinarily controversial. The Association for Behavior Analysis (ABAI), commissioned an independent Task Force to examine the issue. After a comprehensive review, the Task Force suggested the treatment should be available for use in select cases through a largely accurate report. Yet, ABAI adopted a position indicating CESS is never appropriate. On the issue of CESS, we are extremely concerned behavior analysis departed from the fundamental epistemology of positivism and is misleading nascent behavior analysts and consumers of behavioral technology. Destructive behaviors are extremely difficult to treat. In our commentary, we outline clarifications regarding aspects of the Task Force Report, proliferation of falsehoods by leaders in our field, and limitations to the standard of care in behavior analysis. We recommend using science to answer important questions instead of propagating false information at the expense of current and future clients with treatment refractory behaviors.

Big data is a computing term used to refer to large and complex data sets, typically consisting of terabytes or more of diverse data that is produced rapidly. The analysis of such complex data sets requires advanced analysis techniques with the capacity to identify patterns and abstract meanings from the vast data. The field of data science combines computer science with mathematics/statistics and leverages artificial intelligence, in particular machine learning, to analyze big data. This field holds great promise for behavior analysis, where both clinical and research studies produce large volumes of diverse data at a rapid pace (i.e., big data). This article presents basic lessons for the behavior analytic researchers and clinicians regarding integration of data science into the field of behavior analysis. We provide guidance on how to collect, protect, and process the data, while highlighting the importance of collaborating with data scientists to select a proper machine learning model that aligns with the project goals and develop models with input from human experts. We hope this serves as a guide to support the behavior analysts interested in the field of data science to advance their practice or research, and helps them avoid some common pitfalls.

The acquisition of verbal behavior is complex and requires the analysis of myriad variables. Ernst Moerk estimated that by the time a child has reached 4 years of age they have experienced nearly 9 million language learning trials with mothers using at least 14 categories of maternal teaching interactions. The interactions provide a foundation for children learning the tact, mand, echoic, intraverbal, autoclitic, and other relations, described by Skinner in Verbal Behavior. Here we examine two relations that have been overlooked to some extent and arguably account for many of the generative features of verbal behavior and shared meaning: the abstract tact, or more precisely the interdimensional abstract tact, and the autoclitic frame. We describe Goldiamond's treatment of stimulus control in its many forms; dimensional, abstractional, and instructional, and how it can be used to understand the acquisition of both intradimensional and interdimensional abstract tacts and autoclitic frames that guide seemingly complex relational responding and meet consequential contingency requirements. We argue the development of complex relational responding in children can be explained parsimoniously without mediating variables or hypothetical constructs.

Although the term naming is used colloquially in the English language, it refers to a specific instance of verbal behavior within behavior analysis. Since Horne and Lowe's (Horne & Lowe, 1996) seminal account on naming, the concept continues to generate clinical and research interest to-date. We conducted a systematic search of the behavior analytic studies on naming to highlight the methods that were used to test naming, the terminology that have been adopted, the conceptual underpinnings, and the methods used to train naming if it was found to be absent. Forty-six studies met inclusion criteria and we conducted a descriptive analysis of these studies. We found that most studies either used the terms naming or bidirectional naming. We found wide variation in the methods used to test and train naming. Nearly one third of these studies attempted to offer evidence that naming facilitated some other type of behavior, and the remaining studies attempted to train naming in individuals when the behavior was found to be absent. Overall, our review highlighted that there exists a rich empirical dataset on testing and training naming within behavior analysis, and we discussed specific areas for future research.

Geographic distribution patterns of board certified behavior analysts may be useful in analyzing the growth of the field. First, we present an international snapshot of Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) certificants, then analyze relative growth rates between countries from 1999 to 2019. This is followed by an in depth review of certificant distribution patterns in the United States and Canada, as well as the ratios of experienced behavior analysts to new certificants. These data highlight regions with a potential deficit of qualified supervisors. There are factors that influence different dispersal patterns, and without drilling deeper into the data we may be unable to effectively identify or influence them in order meet the specific needs of a geographic region.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40614-023-00370-5.

A well-known cartoon among psychologists and behavior analysts depicts two rats in a Skinner box, leaning over a response lever as one says to the other, "Boy, do we have this guy conditioned, every time I press the bar down he drops a pellet in." Anyone who has ever conducted an experiment, worked with a client, or taught someone can relate to the cartoon's message of reciprocal control between subject and experimenter, client and therapist, and teacher and student. This is the tale of that cartoon and its impact. It begins mid-20^th-century at Columbia University, then a hotbed of behavioral psychology, which bears an intimate connection to the cartoon's appearance. The tale expands from Columbia to follow the lives of its creators from their undergraduate days there to their deaths decades later. The infusion of the cartoon into American psychology begins with B. F. Skinner, but, over the years, it also has appeared in introductory psychology textbooks and in iterative form in mass media outlets such as the World Wide Web and magazines like The New Yorker. The heart of the tale, however, was stated in the second sentence of this abstract. The tale ends with a review of how reciprocal relations like those depicted by the cartoon's creators have influenced research and practice in behavioral psychology.