Christopher J. Manente, James C. Maraventano, R. LaRue, Lara Delmolino, Donna L. Sloan
As individuals with autism age out of the educational system, families and practitioners are faced with a number of challenges, including placement concerns and limited behavioral support. This change in available resources often affects the quality of behavioral intervention available to adults on the autism spectrum. These concerns are highlighted when considering the prevalence of maladaptive behavior in adult populations. While estimates of the prevalence of problem behavior vary considerably, levels of maladaptive behavior tend to be higher for individuals with autism relative to other disorders, and may include aggression, self-injurious behavior, property destruction, ritualistic behavior, disruption, inappropriate vocalization, and pica (among others). It has been estimated that the prevalence of aggressive behavior ranges from 6.4% to 32.0% of cases, self-injurious behavior ranges from 4.4% to 21.0% of cases, and destructive behavior from 2.3% to 19.0% of cases (Holden & Gitlesen, 2004; Lowe, Allen, Jones, Brophy, Moore, & James, 2007). While procedures for assessment and treatment for these kinds of problem behavior are well-established in the behavioral literature, the adult population presents unique challenges for families and care providers. The purpose of the current paper is to review the status of existing issues in functional assessment and treatment development in adult populations diagnosed with autism. In addition, we will review some potential strategies for improving services to this underserved population. Challenges to Functional Assessment and Treatment Development in Adults While assessment and treatment procedures for problem behavior have been well established in the research literature, the representation of adult populations is generally lacking relative to younger populations (Hanley, Iwata & McCord, 2003). There are a number of factors which contribute to this relative dearth in the literature. Legislation. Perhaps the most salient reason for the lack of services (and subsequently, research) in adult populations is that the legislation mandating the use of functional behavioral assessment and functional-based intervention procedures only extend to individuals to age 21. Upon reaching the age of 21, the adult populations are not provided with the same entitlements as their school-age counterparts with regard to "functional behavioral assessment" and "positive behavioral supports." Cost of Services. Providing services for adults with autism-spectrum disorders represents a substantial economic expense for families and government agencies (Cimera and Cohan, 2009; Ganz, 2006; Jarbrink, McCrone, Fombonne, Zanden, & Knapp, 2007). Adults with autism are among the most costly individuals with disabilities to serve, second only to those individuals with sensory impairments. It has been estimated that it costs approximately $3.2 million dollars to financially support an autistic person over their lifetime (Ganz, 2006). Consi
{"title":"Effective Behavioral Intervention for Adults on the Autism Spectrum: Best Practices in Functional Assessment and Treatment Development.","authors":"Christopher J. Manente, James C. Maraventano, R. LaRue, Lara Delmolino, Donna L. Sloan","doi":"10.1037/H0100687","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100687","url":null,"abstract":"As individuals with autism age out of the educational system, families and practitioners are faced with a number of challenges, including placement concerns and limited behavioral support. This change in available resources often affects the quality of behavioral intervention available to adults on the autism spectrum. These concerns are highlighted when considering the prevalence of maladaptive behavior in adult populations. While estimates of the prevalence of problem behavior vary considerably, levels of maladaptive behavior tend to be higher for individuals with autism relative to other disorders, and may include aggression, self-injurious behavior, property destruction, ritualistic behavior, disruption, inappropriate vocalization, and pica (among others). It has been estimated that the prevalence of aggressive behavior ranges from 6.4% to 32.0% of cases, self-injurious behavior ranges from 4.4% to 21.0% of cases, and destructive behavior from 2.3% to 19.0% of cases (Holden & Gitlesen, 2004; Lowe, Allen, Jones, Brophy, Moore, & James, 2007). While procedures for assessment and treatment for these kinds of problem behavior are well-established in the behavioral literature, the adult population presents unique challenges for families and care providers. The purpose of the current paper is to review the status of existing issues in functional assessment and treatment development in adult populations diagnosed with autism. In addition, we will review some potential strategies for improving services to this underserved population. Challenges to Functional Assessment and Treatment Development in Adults While assessment and treatment procedures for problem behavior have been well established in the research literature, the representation of adult populations is generally lacking relative to younger populations (Hanley, Iwata & McCord, 2003). There are a number of factors which contribute to this relative dearth in the literature. Legislation. Perhaps the most salient reason for the lack of services (and subsequently, research) in adult populations is that the legislation mandating the use of functional behavioral assessment and functional-based intervention procedures only extend to individuals to age 21. Upon reaching the age of 21, the adult populations are not provided with the same entitlements as their school-age counterparts with regard to \"functional behavioral assessment\" and \"positive behavioral supports.\" Cost of Services. Providing services for adults with autism-spectrum disorders represents a substantial economic expense for families and government agencies (Cimera and Cohan, 2009; Ganz, 2006; Jarbrink, McCrone, Fombonne, Zanden, & Knapp, 2007). Adults with autism are among the most costly individuals with disabilities to serve, second only to those individuals with sensory impairments. It has been estimated that it costs approximately $3.2 million dollars to financially support an autistic person over their lifetime (Ganz, 2006). Consi","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"36-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58474013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is a consensus in the behavioral literature that treatments based on the results of a functional assessment are more effective than treatments that are selected arbitrarily (e.g., Carr & Durand, 1985; Paclawskyj, Kurtz, & O'Connor, 2004). By identifying the functional reinforcers that maintain problem behavior, practitioners can design interventions that are more efficient (i.e., it narrows the list of potential interventions to choose from) and more effective. Linking treatments to functional assessment results has become standard clinical practice and has found its way into the language of federal and state legislation. This has been a positive and robust change in the behavioral intervention process. While the concept of linking treatment to function has logical appeal, practical issues arise when implementing these strategies in applied settings. In many cases, staff and caregivers may not know how to link assessment to treatment or the main components of effective function-based intervention. In other words, some care providers may complete a functional behavioral assessment (as is often required by law), but the assessment not translate into a function-based intervention due to a skill deficit on the part of the practitioner designing the intervention (i.e., they do not know how to select an appropriate treatment based on the results). Furthermore, the implementation of treatment may be affected by the level of training and expertise among direct care staff members and on-site supervisors. In many applied settings, direct care staff often do not receive proper training to effectively implement behavior intervention plans. In some cases, the primary procedure for training a staff member is to provide them with a written description of the procedure (i.e., the behavior plan). These concerns about the adequacy of staff/caregiver can have significant deleterious effects from a clinical standpoint, as improper implementation may result in negative outcomes for, not only the learner, but for staff and caregivers as well. Other practical implementation issues may involve the way treatment effectiveness is evaluated itself in applied settings. A thorough analysis of the maintaining mechanisms of the problem behavior is the cornerstone of the intervention, but uncovering functions alone is not enough to ensure an effective intervention. The real life challenges presented by implementation can be addressed with judicious assessment, sensitive treatment, and systems analysis. In many cases, treatments are evaluated using a "wait and see" approach, where practitioners tell direct care providers to implement an intervention and hope for a positive outcome. Taking a "no news is good news" approach to intervention is not particularly systematic and likely leads to the propagation of ineffective intervention practices. The current manuscript will briefly review information related to the use of functional assessment procedures and common intervention
{"title":"Practical Issues in Effective Behavioral Intervention Development","authors":"Amy P. Hansford, I. Zilber, R. LaRue, M. Weiss","doi":"10.1037/H0100689","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100689","url":null,"abstract":"There is a consensus in the behavioral literature that treatments based on the results of a functional assessment are more effective than treatments that are selected arbitrarily (e.g., Carr & Durand, 1985; Paclawskyj, Kurtz, & O'Connor, 2004). By identifying the functional reinforcers that maintain problem behavior, practitioners can design interventions that are more efficient (i.e., it narrows the list of potential interventions to choose from) and more effective. Linking treatments to functional assessment results has become standard clinical practice and has found its way into the language of federal and state legislation. This has been a positive and robust change in the behavioral intervention process. While the concept of linking treatment to function has logical appeal, practical issues arise when implementing these strategies in applied settings. In many cases, staff and caregivers may not know how to link assessment to treatment or the main components of effective function-based intervention. In other words, some care providers may complete a functional behavioral assessment (as is often required by law), but the assessment not translate into a function-based intervention due to a skill deficit on the part of the practitioner designing the intervention (i.e., they do not know how to select an appropriate treatment based on the results). Furthermore, the implementation of treatment may be affected by the level of training and expertise among direct care staff members and on-site supervisors. In many applied settings, direct care staff often do not receive proper training to effectively implement behavior intervention plans. In some cases, the primary procedure for training a staff member is to provide them with a written description of the procedure (i.e., the behavior plan). These concerns about the adequacy of staff/caregiver can have significant deleterious effects from a clinical standpoint, as improper implementation may result in negative outcomes for, not only the learner, but for staff and caregivers as well. Other practical implementation issues may involve the way treatment effectiveness is evaluated itself in applied settings. A thorough analysis of the maintaining mechanisms of the problem behavior is the cornerstone of the intervention, but uncovering functions alone is not enough to ensure an effective intervention. The real life challenges presented by implementation can be addressed with judicious assessment, sensitive treatment, and systems analysis. In many cases, treatments are evaluated using a \"wait and see\" approach, where practitioners tell direct care providers to implement an intervention and hope for a positive outcome. Taking a \"no news is good news\" approach to intervention is not particularly systematic and likely leads to the propagation of ineffective intervention practices. The current manuscript will briefly review information related to the use of functional assessment procedures and common intervention","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"59-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58473560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although not essential for a diagnosis, Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and Intellectual Disability (ID) are commonly associated with a broad range of maladaptive behaviors including self-injurious behavior (SIB), property destruction, aggression towards others, severe disruptions, and stereotypic behaviors (e.g., body rocking). Maladaptive behaviors can lead to poor social relationships; poor academic success, destruction of property, and serious medical problems, such as tissue damage. For these reasons, the assessment and treatment of such behaviors in individuals with ASD and ID is an important component of any comprehensive approach to rehabilitation. A behavioral approach to intervening with maladaptive behaviors has been consistently documented as the most efficacious approach for treating aberrant behaviors (Gresham et al., 2004; Campbell, Herzinger, & James, 2007). The key to effective treatment is the identification of the function, or purpose, of the behavior. The most current taxonomy of behavioral function focuses on three types of reinforcement as the major mechanisms maintaining behavior: (a) positive reinforcement, (b) negative reinforcement, and (c) automatic reinforcement. In the last 25 years, there has been a trend toward developing treatments for maladaptive behaviors following determination of the hypothesized functions of the behaviors through Functional Behavior Assessments (FBA). Based on the ascribed function of the target behavior, an appropriate treatment package can be selected. Researchers assessing maladaptive behaviors agree that identifying the function of the target behavior is integral in the treatment selection process; thus FBAs are a core feature in the development of interventions designed to ameliorate aberrant behaviors (Yarborough & Carr, 2000) and required by federal education law (e.g., Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], P.L. 105-117, 1997). Although required by law in some cases, the term FBA is still somewhat vague. Generally, FBA refers to any methodology used to identify the purpose of behavior and encompasses indirect assessments, (e.g., interviews, rating scales), descriptive assessments (e.g., A-B-C sheets, direct observation with no variable or environment manipulation); and functional analyses (FA; e.g., analogue conditions in which antecedent or consequent variables are systematically manipulated within an experimental design). For the purposes of this paper, we are using the term FA to describe all experimental analyses. The term Behavioral Assessment (BA) refers to those assessments which are non-experimental in nature and includes both indirect and descriptive assessments. Several researchers have made comparisons across FBA methodologies and, in general, the findings support the FA as the "gold standard" for ascribing function and consequently developing function-based treatments. Paclawskyj et al. (2001) and Durand and Crimmins (1988) both reported positive correlations w
自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)和智力残疾(ID)虽然不是诊断的必要条件，但通常与一系列适应不良行为有关，包括自残行为(SIB)、破坏财产、攻击他人、严重干扰和刻板行为(如身体摇晃)。适应不良的行为会导致不良的社会关系;学业成绩差，破坏财产，严重的医疗问题，如组织损伤。由于这些原因，评估和治疗ASD和ID患者的这些行为是任何综合康复方法的重要组成部分。干预适应不良行为的行为方法一直被认为是治疗异常行为最有效的方法(Gresham et al.， 2004;Campbell, Herzinger和James, 2007)。有效治疗的关键是识别行为的功能或目的。行为功能的最新分类集中在三种类型的强化作为维持行为的主要机制:(a)正强化，(b)负强化和(c)自动强化。在过去的25年里，通过功能行为评估(FBA)来确定行为的假设功能，发展适应不良行为的治疗方法已经成为一种趋势。根据目标行为的归属功能，选择合适的治疗方案。评估适应不良行为的研究人员一致认为，识别目标行为的功能是治疗选择过程中不可或缺的一部分;因此，fba是旨在改善异常行为的干预措施发展的核心特征(Yarborough & Carr, 2000)，也是联邦教育法(例如，《残疾人教育法》[IDEA]， P.L. 105-117, 1997)所要求的。尽管法律在某些情况下有要求，但FBA这个术语仍然有些模糊。一般来说，FBA指的是用于识别行为目的的任何方法，包括间接评估(例如，访谈，评分量表)，描述性评估(例如，A-B-C表，无变量或环境操纵的直接观察);功能分析(FA);例如，在实验设计中系统地操纵前因变量或后因变量的模拟条件。为了本文的目的，我们使用术语FA来描述所有的实验分析。行为评估(BA)一词指的是非实验性质的评估，包括间接评估和描述性评估。几位研究人员对FBA方法进行了比较，总的来说，研究结果支持FA作为归因于功能和因此开发基于功能的治疗的“金标准”。Paclawskyj et al.(2001)和Durand and Crimmins(1988)在比较FA结果与QABF (QABF;Matson & Vollmer, 1995)和动机评估量表(MAS;Durand & Crimmins, 1992)。相比之下，Hall(2005)发现，FBA的描述性和实验性方法只有25%的一致性。在几乎所有发表的比较数据中，FA代表了其他类型评估的有效性测试的金标准。另一些研究则超越了FBA类型之间的功能比较，而是评估了不同方法的干预结果。了解哪种FBA方法与更成功的治疗结果相关是必要的。Didden、Korzilius、van Oorsouw和Sturmey(2006)对描述性和实验性FBAs进行了比较，发现基于实验方法的治疗显著提高了治疗效果评分。Herzinger和Campbell(2007)对自闭症文献进行了一项关于适应不良行为的评估和治疗的荟萃分析。…
{"title":"A Quantitative Synthesis of Developmental Disability Research: The Impact of Functional Assessment Methodology on Treatment Effectiveness.","authors":"Caitlin H. Delfs, Jonathan M. Campbell","doi":"10.1037/H0100685","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100685","url":null,"abstract":"Although not essential for a diagnosis, Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and Intellectual Disability (ID) are commonly associated with a broad range of maladaptive behaviors including self-injurious behavior (SIB), property destruction, aggression towards others, severe disruptions, and stereotypic behaviors (e.g., body rocking). Maladaptive behaviors can lead to poor social relationships; poor academic success, destruction of property, and serious medical problems, such as tissue damage. For these reasons, the assessment and treatment of such behaviors in individuals with ASD and ID is an important component of any comprehensive approach to rehabilitation. A behavioral approach to intervening with maladaptive behaviors has been consistently documented as the most efficacious approach for treating aberrant behaviors (Gresham et al., 2004; Campbell, Herzinger, & James, 2007). The key to effective treatment is the identification of the function, or purpose, of the behavior. The most current taxonomy of behavioral function focuses on three types of reinforcement as the major mechanisms maintaining behavior: (a) positive reinforcement, (b) negative reinforcement, and (c) automatic reinforcement. In the last 25 years, there has been a trend toward developing treatments for maladaptive behaviors following determination of the hypothesized functions of the behaviors through Functional Behavior Assessments (FBA). Based on the ascribed function of the target behavior, an appropriate treatment package can be selected. Researchers assessing maladaptive behaviors agree that identifying the function of the target behavior is integral in the treatment selection process; thus FBAs are a core feature in the development of interventions designed to ameliorate aberrant behaviors (Yarborough & Carr, 2000) and required by federal education law (e.g., Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], P.L. 105-117, 1997). Although required by law in some cases, the term FBA is still somewhat vague. Generally, FBA refers to any methodology used to identify the purpose of behavior and encompasses indirect assessments, (e.g., interviews, rating scales), descriptive assessments (e.g., A-B-C sheets, direct observation with no variable or environment manipulation); and functional analyses (FA; e.g., analogue conditions in which antecedent or consequent variables are systematically manipulated within an experimental design). For the purposes of this paper, we are using the term FA to describe all experimental analyses. The term Behavioral Assessment (BA) refers to those assessments which are non-experimental in nature and includes both indirect and descriptive assessments. Several researchers have made comparisons across FBA methodologies and, in general, the findings support the FA as the \"gold standard\" for ascribing function and consequently developing function-based treatments. Paclawskyj et al. (2001) and Durand and Crimmins (1988) both reported positive correlations w","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"4-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58473704","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The literature on functional assessment and function-based treatments is robust. Since the seminal articles published by Carr (1977) and Iwata Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman & Richard, (1982/1994), the field of functional analysis not only flourished, but it has revolutionized the assessment and treatment process. Functional assessment procedures have been used to guide the treatment process for a wide range of behavioral difficulties, including, aggression, self-injurious behavior, disruption, property destruction, ritualistic behavior, feeding disorders, pica to name a few. This literature has consistently shown that understanding why challenging behavior occurs is far more important than what it looks like to develop effective interventions. Prior to this research, treatments for problem behavior were often selected arbitrarily, without knowledge of the cause, which ultimately led to less effective, non-function based interventions (Carr & Durand, 1985; Durand & Kishi, 1987; Kahng, Iwata & Lewin, 2002; Repp, Felce & Barton, 1988). The importance of this body of literature cannot be underestimated. The literature has had a tremendous impact on clinical practice as we currently know it. Not only have functional assessment and treatment procedures been shown to benefit individuals exhibiting problem behavior (see Hanley, Iwata & McCord, 2003 and Kahng, et al., 2002 for reviews on the topic), but the model of evidence-based practice employed by practitioners using the procedures has influenced federal and state legislation regarding best practice (IDEA, 1997, 2004). While the literature on functional assessment and intervention development has changed the landscape of the educational system, gaps still remain in the translation of research to practice. Although these procedures have widespread support in the behavioral literature, they are often inconsistently applied in clinical settings. Some of these gaps are related to the use of empirically supported functional assessment procedures. Other gaps are related to treatment issues in applied settings. The current issue of Behavior Analyst Today will address some of these gaps in the literature related to the translation from empirical evidence to clinical practice. There remain questions about the practical application of functional assessment procedures. The article by Delfs and Campbell (2010) provides a unique quantitative review of the empirical literature on the topic of functional assessment. The authors discuss the validity of different types of functional behavioral assessment as well as the use of the procedures to determine if behavioral function and treatment effectiveness varies as a function of diagnosis. Sloman (2010) outlines critical issues as they relate to the use of descriptive assessment. While research findings have been mixed regarding the validity, the author reviews the circumstances under which descriptive assessment may be most useful. In addition, Sloman identifies novel uses of
{"title":"Introduction for the special issue on functional assessment and treatment development.","authors":"R. LaRue","doi":"10.1037/H0100691","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100691","url":null,"abstract":"The literature on functional assessment and function-based treatments is robust. Since the seminal articles published by Carr (1977) and Iwata Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman & Richard, (1982/1994), the field of functional analysis not only flourished, but it has revolutionized the assessment and treatment process. Functional assessment procedures have been used to guide the treatment process for a wide range of behavioral difficulties, including, aggression, self-injurious behavior, disruption, property destruction, ritualistic behavior, feeding disorders, pica to name a few. This literature has consistently shown that understanding why challenging behavior occurs is far more important than what it looks like to develop effective interventions. Prior to this research, treatments for problem behavior were often selected arbitrarily, without knowledge of the cause, which ultimately led to less effective, non-function based interventions (Carr & Durand, 1985; Durand & Kishi, 1987; Kahng, Iwata & Lewin, 2002; Repp, Felce & Barton, 1988). The importance of this body of literature cannot be underestimated. The literature has had a tremendous impact on clinical practice as we currently know it. Not only have functional assessment and treatment procedures been shown to benefit individuals exhibiting problem behavior (see Hanley, Iwata & McCord, 2003 and Kahng, et al., 2002 for reviews on the topic), but the model of evidence-based practice employed by practitioners using the procedures has influenced federal and state legislation regarding best practice (IDEA, 1997, 2004). While the literature on functional assessment and intervention development has changed the landscape of the educational system, gaps still remain in the translation of research to practice. Although these procedures have widespread support in the behavioral literature, they are often inconsistently applied in clinical settings. Some of these gaps are related to the use of empirically supported functional assessment procedures. Other gaps are related to treatment issues in applied settings. The current issue of Behavior Analyst Today will address some of these gaps in the literature related to the translation from empirical evidence to clinical practice. There remain questions about the practical application of functional assessment procedures. The article by Delfs and Campbell (2010) provides a unique quantitative review of the empirical literature on the topic of functional assessment. The authors discuss the validity of different types of functional behavioral assessment as well as the use of the procedures to determine if behavioral function and treatment effectiveness varies as a function of diagnosis. Sloman (2010) outlines critical issues as they relate to the use of descriptive assessment. While research findings have been mixed regarding the validity, the author reviews the circumstances under which descriptive assessment may be most useful. In addition, Sloman identifies novel uses of","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58473751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Descriptive analysis involves the direct observation of target behavior in natural (or naturalistic) contexts to gather information on contiguous and potentially relevant environmental events, in the absence of experimental manipulation. That is, descriptive analyses identify events that are correlated with the occurrence of some target response. Descriptive analysis is commonly used as a part of a comprehensive functional assessment of problem behavior, prior to conducting an experimental functional analysis. Several advantages of descriptive analysis have been noted in the literature. First, because descriptive analyses involve direct observation of behavior in the natural environment, they provide a means to gather baseline rates of problem behavior. These rates may be useful to determine treatment efficacy once an intervention is developed and implemented. Second, the direct observation aspect of descriptive analyses may be useful in developing operational definitions of behavior, rather than relying on verbal report of caregivers. Third, descriptive analyses may be helpful in identifying particular antecedents or consequences to incorporate into functional analyses. For example, certain functional analysis conditions may be added or omitted based on the common antecedent and consequent conditions observed in the natural environment. Fourth, it has been argued that descriptive analysis may be used as an assessment procedure when functional analyses are not possible due to the nature of the target behavior (e.g., extremely low rate or dangerous problem behavior). However, the use of descriptive analysis as a sole means of ascribing function to behavior is not recommended. This is because the complexity of the natural environment makes it difficult to determine which events are functionally related to the target behavior. Other potential negative aspects of using descriptive analysis to determine the function of the behavior have also been noted including the amount of time and complex data analysis necessary for a complete assessment, the correlational nature of the data, and poor validity outcomes reported in the literature. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of a variety of research areas in descriptive analysis, including suggestions of when descriptive analyses can and should be used. In addition, possible future areas of research using descriptive analysis will be discussed. Descriptive Analysis Techniques Several variations of direct observation techniques have been presented in the literature. The particular technique used affects the data presentation as well as the information that can be gleaned from the data analysis. For this reason, a brief description of the most commonly used techniques will be provided. The first technique is the scatter plot analysis, first described by Touchette, MacDonald and Langer (1985). A scatter plot analysis involves a grid data sheet with time intervals listed vertically (e.g., 30-minut
{"title":"Research trends in descriptive analysis.","authors":"Kimberly N. Sloman","doi":"10.1037/H0100686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100686","url":null,"abstract":"Descriptive analysis involves the direct observation of target behavior in natural (or naturalistic) contexts to gather information on contiguous and potentially relevant environmental events, in the absence of experimental manipulation. That is, descriptive analyses identify events that are correlated with the occurrence of some target response. Descriptive analysis is commonly used as a part of a comprehensive functional assessment of problem behavior, prior to conducting an experimental functional analysis. Several advantages of descriptive analysis have been noted in the literature. First, because descriptive analyses involve direct observation of behavior in the natural environment, they provide a means to gather baseline rates of problem behavior. These rates may be useful to determine treatment efficacy once an intervention is developed and implemented. Second, the direct observation aspect of descriptive analyses may be useful in developing operational definitions of behavior, rather than relying on verbal report of caregivers. Third, descriptive analyses may be helpful in identifying particular antecedents or consequences to incorporate into functional analyses. For example, certain functional analysis conditions may be added or omitted based on the common antecedent and consequent conditions observed in the natural environment. Fourth, it has been argued that descriptive analysis may be used as an assessment procedure when functional analyses are not possible due to the nature of the target behavior (e.g., extremely low rate or dangerous problem behavior). However, the use of descriptive analysis as a sole means of ascribing function to behavior is not recommended. This is because the complexity of the natural environment makes it difficult to determine which events are functionally related to the target behavior. Other potential negative aspects of using descriptive analysis to determine the function of the behavior have also been noted including the amount of time and complex data analysis necessary for a complete assessment, the correlational nature of the data, and poor validity outcomes reported in the literature. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of a variety of research areas in descriptive analysis, including suggestions of when descriptive analyses can and should be used. In addition, possible future areas of research using descriptive analysis will be discussed. Descriptive Analysis Techniques Several variations of direct observation techniques have been presented in the literature. The particular technique used affects the data presentation as well as the information that can be gleaned from the data analysis. For this reason, a brief description of the most commonly used techniques will be provided. The first technique is the scatter plot analysis, first described by Touchette, MacDonald and Langer (1985). A scatter plot analysis involves a grid data sheet with time intervals listed vertically (e.g., 30-minut","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"20-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58473790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
William V Dube, William H Ahearn, Karen Lionello-Denolf, William J McIlvane
Behavioral momentum theory (Nevin, 1992, Nevin & Grace, 2000) describes the relation between the characteristic level of reinforcement within a context and behavioral resistance to change within that context. This paper will describe the multiple-schedule-disrupter paradigm for basic behavioral momentum research and illustrate it with two representative examples from the literature with non-human subjects. The remainder of the paper will provide a review of translational research in human populations with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) employing the multiple-schedule-disrupter paradigm and closely related variations. The results of this research show that the reinforcer-rate effects predicted by behavioral momentum theory are widely replicated in IDD populations. The intended audience for this paper is the practitioner interested in learning about the current status of translational research in behavioral momentum as a foundation for considering ways in which behavioral momentum theory may be relevant to clinical issues.
{"title":"Behavioral Momentum: Translational Research in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.","authors":"William V Dube, William H Ahearn, Karen Lionello-Denolf, William J McIlvane","doi":"10.1037/h0100668","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100668","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Behavioral momentum theory (Nevin, 1992, Nevin & Grace, 2000) describes the relation between the characteristic level of reinforcement within a context and behavioral resistance to change within that context. This paper will describe the multiple-schedule-disrupter paradigm for basic behavioral momentum research and illustrate it with two representative examples from the literature with non-human subjects. The remainder of the paper will provide a review of translational research in human populations with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) employing the multiple-schedule-disrupter paradigm and closely related variations. The results of this research show that the reinforcer-rate effects predicted by behavioral momentum theory are widely replicated in IDD populations. The intended audience for this paper is the practitioner interested in learning about the current status of translational research in behavioral momentum as a foundation for considering ways in which behavioral momentum theory may be relevant to clinical issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"10 2","pages":"238-253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950703/pdf/nihms150864.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"29345737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since September 11th, 2001, the field of psychology has become increasingly interested in the effects terrorism has had on America. For example, there has been a substantial increase in acts of violence (Bar-Tal & Labin, 2001) and prejudicial ideation (Coryn, Beale, & Myers, 2004) toward Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent. Mainstream psychological accounts for acts of prejudice have included personality orientation (Crowson, DeBacker, & Thoma, 2005), and beliefs of perceived threats to the U.S., social dominance orientation, and self-categorization (Oswald, 2006). While these accounts attempt to isolate predictive factors for prejudicial ideation, they do not focus on observable behavior that is amenable to change. In fact, Sidman has said the "experimental, theoretical, and applied sciences of Behavior Analysis are untapped resources with respect to the issue of terrorism" (2003). He goes on to assert that "terrorism is a behavioral problem," for which the solution requires a basic understanding of its maintaining variables. In a traditional behavioral account of terrorism, acts of terror and prejudice related to them would be solely governed by the consequences that follow these classes of behavior. For example, a Middle Eastern man who commits an act of terrorism would be reinforced by social contingencies (praise from fellow terrorists), the sight of a perceived enemy's suffering (images of pain following successful terrorist acts), and possibly by the media 's coverage of the act (instant fame and notoriety). In the same way, an American police officer who calls a person of Middle Eastern descent in for questioning based on his racial profile is also reinforced by social contingencies (praise from a like-minded social circle), the sight of a Middle Eastern detainee in custody, and perhaps a promotion (more money for working hard to keep his neighborhood safe from terrorism). Establishing operations (Michael, 1993) or setting events (Kantor & Smith, 1975) such as being deprived of attention for most of one's life or experiencing economic hardship would only serve to make the above consequences more salient. While a traditional behavioral account explains how direct contingencies can shape prejudicial behavior and acts of terrorism, a more comprehensive account is needed. The traditional account does not address the fact that the targets of prejudice related to terrorism, innocent U.S. and Middle Eastern civilians, have never been directly paired with either the U.S. government or terrorist groups responsible for the 9/11 attacks, respectively. Some behavior analytic researchers have answered the call. In a paper published in 2003, Dixon, Dymond, Rehfeldt, Roche, & Zlomke outlined a more complex account of prejudice and terrorism and set an agenda for empirical studies to follow. Specifically, the article explains how the 9/11 attacks themselves, the resulting emotional responses of rage and hate felt by Americans, and the images of
{"title":"Examining prejudice towards Middle Eastern persons via a transformation of stimulus functions.","authors":"M. Dixon, A. Branon, Becky L. Nastally, N. Mui","doi":"10.1037/H0100672","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100672","url":null,"abstract":"Since September 11th, 2001, the field of psychology has become increasingly interested in the effects terrorism has had on America. For example, there has been a substantial increase in acts of violence (Bar-Tal & Labin, 2001) and prejudicial ideation (Coryn, Beale, & Myers, 2004) toward Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent. Mainstream psychological accounts for acts of prejudice have included personality orientation (Crowson, DeBacker, & Thoma, 2005), and beliefs of perceived threats to the U.S., social dominance orientation, and self-categorization (Oswald, 2006). While these accounts attempt to isolate predictive factors for prejudicial ideation, they do not focus on observable behavior that is amenable to change. In fact, Sidman has said the \"experimental, theoretical, and applied sciences of Behavior Analysis are untapped resources with respect to the issue of terrorism\" (2003). He goes on to assert that \"terrorism is a behavioral problem,\" for which the solution requires a basic understanding of its maintaining variables. In a traditional behavioral account of terrorism, acts of terror and prejudice related to them would be solely governed by the consequences that follow these classes of behavior. For example, a Middle Eastern man who commits an act of terrorism would be reinforced by social contingencies (praise from fellow terrorists), the sight of a perceived enemy's suffering (images of pain following successful terrorist acts), and possibly by the media 's coverage of the act (instant fame and notoriety). In the same way, an American police officer who calls a person of Middle Eastern descent in for questioning based on his racial profile is also reinforced by social contingencies (praise from a like-minded social circle), the sight of a Middle Eastern detainee in custody, and perhaps a promotion (more money for working hard to keep his neighborhood safe from terrorism). Establishing operations (Michael, 1993) or setting events (Kantor & Smith, 1975) such as being deprived of attention for most of one's life or experiencing economic hardship would only serve to make the above consequences more salient. While a traditional behavioral account explains how direct contingencies can shape prejudicial behavior and acts of terrorism, a more comprehensive account is needed. The traditional account does not address the fact that the targets of prejudice related to terrorism, innocent U.S. and Middle Eastern civilians, have never been directly paired with either the U.S. government or terrorist groups responsible for the 9/11 attacks, respectively. Some behavior analytic researchers have answered the call. In a paper published in 2003, Dixon, Dymond, Rehfeldt, Roche, & Zlomke outlined a more complex account of prejudice and terrorism and set an agenda for empirical studies to follow. Specifically, the article explains how the 9/11 attacks themselves, the resulting emotional responses of rage and hate felt by Americans, and the images of ","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"10 1","pages":"295-318"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58472884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A unique aspect of behavior analysis as a discipline is the direct link between elements that are basic (operant mechanisms that underlie a response) and those that are applied (applications of those mechanisms to socially relevant behavior) (Wacker, 2000). This direct link provides opportunities for an almost seamless translation of knowledge gained in basic operant laboratories to significant social problems encountered in the community. For example, Kazdin (1978) noted a direct link in the 1960s between research conducted in laboratory settings and research conducted in behavior therapy. As studies were disseminated from operant laboratories, approaches to behavior therapy changed and, in a reciprocal fashion, studies in behavior therapy influenced studies conducted in operant labs. More recently, however, Vollmer and Hackenberg (2001) have noted that the "bridges" built in behavior analytic research are largely unidirectional. Specifically, what is learned in the nonhuman laboratory frequently informs behavior analytic practice. However, save a few exceptions, what occurs in practice infrequently directs nonhuman laboratory research. This state of affairs, as it seems to be, need not remain. Hake (1982) described studies that promoted reciprocal interactions between basic and applied behavior analysis as constituting bridge studies. Bridge studies provide analyses that increase our understanding of both operant mechanisms and socially meaningful behavior and thus provide the necessary links for viewing behavior analysis on a continuum rather than as separate categories of basic and applied research. The categorization of operant research as either basic or applied is often helpful because it permits consumers to determine which books, journals, and presentations may be of most interest to them. However, such categorization can also lead to the absence of the reciprocal relationship described by Kazdin (1978) and Vollmer and Hackenberg (2001). One outcome of this lack of reciprocity is that as practitioners, we may encounter problem behaviors that are resistant to change or treatment programs, and we have difficulty determining why the behavior is persisting or how to make fundamental changes to enhance the treatment's effectiveness. As applied researchers, we sometimes struggle with how to conduct additional studies to better understand the relation between the target behaviors of interest and the components within the treatment programs being conducted (Borrero, Vollmer, Samaha, Sloman, & Francisco, 2007). A disconnect between basic and applied behavior analysis leads toward descriptions of observed outcomes and away from analyses of why the outcomes occurred. It also leads to definitions of what constitutes a desirable treatment based on the structural components that comprise the treatment and away from functional analyses of the conditions under which any given treatment might be most effective. As an example, the phenomenon of maintenanc
{"title":"Introduction to the BAT Special Issue on Bridge Studies","authors":"D. Wacker, J. McComas, J. C. Borrero","doi":"10.1037/H0100667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100667","url":null,"abstract":"A unique aspect of behavior analysis as a discipline is the direct link between elements that are basic (operant mechanisms that underlie a response) and those that are applied (applications of those mechanisms to socially relevant behavior) (Wacker, 2000). This direct link provides opportunities for an almost seamless translation of knowledge gained in basic operant laboratories to significant social problems encountered in the community. For example, Kazdin (1978) noted a direct link in the 1960s between research conducted in laboratory settings and research conducted in behavior therapy. As studies were disseminated from operant laboratories, approaches to behavior therapy changed and, in a reciprocal fashion, studies in behavior therapy influenced studies conducted in operant labs. More recently, however, Vollmer and Hackenberg (2001) have noted that the \"bridges\" built in behavior analytic research are largely unidirectional. Specifically, what is learned in the nonhuman laboratory frequently informs behavior analytic practice. However, save a few exceptions, what occurs in practice infrequently directs nonhuman laboratory research. This state of affairs, as it seems to be, need not remain. Hake (1982) described studies that promoted reciprocal interactions between basic and applied behavior analysis as constituting bridge studies. Bridge studies provide analyses that increase our understanding of both operant mechanisms and socially meaningful behavior and thus provide the necessary links for viewing behavior analysis on a continuum rather than as separate categories of basic and applied research. The categorization of operant research as either basic or applied is often helpful because it permits consumers to determine which books, journals, and presentations may be of most interest to them. However, such categorization can also lead to the absence of the reciprocal relationship described by Kazdin (1978) and Vollmer and Hackenberg (2001). One outcome of this lack of reciprocity is that as practitioners, we may encounter problem behaviors that are resistant to change or treatment programs, and we have difficulty determining why the behavior is persisting or how to make fundamental changes to enhance the treatment's effectiveness. As applied researchers, we sometimes struggle with how to conduct additional studies to better understand the relation between the target behaviors of interest and the components within the treatment programs being conducted (Borrero, Vollmer, Samaha, Sloman, & Francisco, 2007). A disconnect between basic and applied behavior analysis leads toward descriptions of observed outcomes and away from analyses of why the outcomes occurred. It also leads to definitions of what constitutes a desirable treatment based on the structural components that comprise the treatment and away from functional analyses of the conditions under which any given treatment might be most effective. As an example, the phenomenon of maintenanc","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"10 1","pages":"234-237"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58472536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In a previous issue of this journal, we discussed the logic of conducting basic research on problems related to application (Borrero, Vollmer, Samaha, Sloman, & Francisco, 2007). For example, it is common in some fields of basic science (e.g., genetics) to take a real world problem (e.g., cancer) and conduct laboratory research to better understand the causes of real world problems (e.g., genetic predispositions) and potential solutions to those problems. Although the field of behavior analysis has a long history of translating basic research into application, it is less common in our field to take questions about the human situation and make efforts to address them via laboratory research and then, in turn, use the findings to promote better application of behavior analysis. Such an approach has been the focus of a decade-long effort to conduct research in an operant (rat) laboratory for the purposes of addressing questions pertinent to the behavioral assessment and treatment of behavior disorders. We have empirical papers in various stages of preparation and thought it might be useful to provide an update on some findings from two specific lines of research. The first line of research is a series of studies constituting the dissertation experiments by the second author, which involved evaluations of reinforcement contingencies as a comparison of two conditional probabilities (a probability of a reinforcer given the occurrence of behavior and a probability of a reinforcer given the nonoccurrence of behavior). The second line of research is a series of studies constituting the dissertation experiments by the third author, which involved testing a variation of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) known as "momentary" DRO (mDRO). On the notion of contingency Reynolds (1975) distinguished between contingency and dependency. Dependencies are relationships that describe essentially if-then statements. For example, flipping a light switch causes a light to turn on because of the circuit and the light will come on if and only if the switch is flipped. If a computer is programmed to deliver reinforcers on a fixed ratio schedule, pressing a lever in an operant chamber causes a pellet to be dispensed if and only if the lever is pressed. Of course, a dependency does not require that the consequent event occur every time the response occurs; for example, lean ratio schedules and intermittent interval schedules are still examples of dependency schedules because the reinforcer is delivered if and only if behavior occurs. Although dependencies are certainly a type of contingency, a contingency can more broadly include relations that are obtained from (a) dependencies, (b) accidental relations (Reynolds, 1975), or (c) blends of events including when there is some probability of an event given behavior and some probability of the event given no behavior (Catania, 1998). As an example of the first type (dependencies) relating to behavior disorders, c
{"title":"Laboratory Evaluations ofReinforcement Contingencies","authors":"T. Vollmer, Andrew L. Samaha, Kimberly N. Sloman","doi":"10.1037/H0100670","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100670","url":null,"abstract":"In a previous issue of this journal, we discussed the logic of conducting basic research on problems related to application (Borrero, Vollmer, Samaha, Sloman, & Francisco, 2007). For example, it is common in some fields of basic science (e.g., genetics) to take a real world problem (e.g., cancer) and conduct laboratory research to better understand the causes of real world problems (e.g., genetic predispositions) and potential solutions to those problems. Although the field of behavior analysis has a long history of translating basic research into application, it is less common in our field to take questions about the human situation and make efforts to address them via laboratory research and then, in turn, use the findings to promote better application of behavior analysis. Such an approach has been the focus of a decade-long effort to conduct research in an operant (rat) laboratory for the purposes of addressing questions pertinent to the behavioral assessment and treatment of behavior disorders. We have empirical papers in various stages of preparation and thought it might be useful to provide an update on some findings from two specific lines of research. The first line of research is a series of studies constituting the dissertation experiments by the second author, which involved evaluations of reinforcement contingencies as a comparison of two conditional probabilities (a probability of a reinforcer given the occurrence of behavior and a probability of a reinforcer given the nonoccurrence of behavior). The second line of research is a series of studies constituting the dissertation experiments by the third author, which involved testing a variation of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) known as \"momentary\" DRO (mDRO). On the notion of contingency Reynolds (1975) distinguished between contingency and dependency. Dependencies are relationships that describe essentially if-then statements. For example, flipping a light switch causes a light to turn on because of the circuit and the light will come on if and only if the switch is flipped. If a computer is programmed to deliver reinforcers on a fixed ratio schedule, pressing a lever in an operant chamber causes a pellet to be dispensed if and only if the lever is pressed. Of course, a dependency does not require that the consequent event occur every time the response occurs; for example, lean ratio schedules and intermittent interval schedules are still examples of dependency schedules because the reinforcer is delivered if and only if behavior occurs. Although dependencies are certainly a type of contingency, a contingency can more broadly include relations that are obtained from (a) dependencies, (b) accidental relations (Reynolds, 1975), or (c) blends of events including when there is some probability of an event given behavior and some probability of the event given no behavior (Catania, 1998). As an example of the first type (dependencies) relating to behavior disorders, c","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"10 1","pages":"267-276"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58472763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Previously learned responses recur under a variety of conditions. Whether such recurrence is good news or bad news depends on the circumstances of the recurrence. Recurrence of a previously eliminated problem behavior is bad news, but the recurrence of a previously established strategy that facilitates constructive problem solving receives a warmer reception. One label attached to some recurrent responding is resurgence. The term is used to describe a procedure, to describe the behavioral effect of the procedure, and to describe a behavioral process (cf. Mazur, 2006). These three uses of the term often are concurrent. Laboratory studies with nonhuman and human animals have isolated some of the variables that contribute to resurgence. In this review, we consider these variables and their implications for facilitating or reducing the likelihood of past behavior recurring in applied research and practice (hereafter, application). Resurgence is said to occur when a previously learned response recurs following a hiatus from that response, during which time some other response first is reinforced and thereafter extinguished. It is during the final condition that the previously learned response resurges. The process of resurgence thus involves three phases. In the first, or reinforcement, phase, a response, A, is reinforced. In the second, or alternative reinforcement, phase, a second response, B, is reinforced while Response A is extinguished. In the third, or resurgence, phase, Response B is extinguished while extinction remains in effect for Response A. The recurrence of Response A is labeled as resurgence. Resurgence may be distinguished from several other circumstances wherein previously learned responses recur. Spontaneous recovery similarly occurs following extinction of such responses, and after an absence of exposure to the extinction situation. It differs from resurgence in that other responses are not (systematically) reinforced during extinction of the response that later spontaneously recovers (but see Cleland, Guerin, Foster, and Temple [2001] for a discussion of circumstances in which resurgence may be considered an instance of spontaneous recovery). Reinstatement occurs when a previously learned response recurs during a period of response-independent delivery of the reinforcer previously used to maintain the response, but after that response first is extinguished. In reinstatement, the response recurs as a result of the evocative, discriminative stimulus effects of the now response-independent presentations of the previously established reinforcer (cf. Franks & Lattal, 1976). Response induction or response generalization may be considered instances of response recurrence in which topographies develop that are similar to the reinforced one. The distinguishing features of these phenomena are important for application because they may result in the re-emergence of responding under different conditions or in different forms. Although all fou
{"title":"Resurgence of Previously Reinforced Responding: Research and Application","authors":"K. Lattal, C. S. P. Pipkin","doi":"10.1037/H0100669","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100669","url":null,"abstract":"Previously learned responses recur under a variety of conditions. Whether such recurrence is good news or bad news depends on the circumstances of the recurrence. Recurrence of a previously eliminated problem behavior is bad news, but the recurrence of a previously established strategy that facilitates constructive problem solving receives a warmer reception. One label attached to some recurrent responding is resurgence. The term is used to describe a procedure, to describe the behavioral effect of the procedure, and to describe a behavioral process (cf. Mazur, 2006). These three uses of the term often are concurrent. Laboratory studies with nonhuman and human animals have isolated some of the variables that contribute to resurgence. In this review, we consider these variables and their implications for facilitating or reducing the likelihood of past behavior recurring in applied research and practice (hereafter, application). Resurgence is said to occur when a previously learned response recurs following a hiatus from that response, during which time some other response first is reinforced and thereafter extinguished. It is during the final condition that the previously learned response resurges. The process of resurgence thus involves three phases. In the first, or reinforcement, phase, a response, A, is reinforced. In the second, or alternative reinforcement, phase, a second response, B, is reinforced while Response A is extinguished. In the third, or resurgence, phase, Response B is extinguished while extinction remains in effect for Response A. The recurrence of Response A is labeled as resurgence. Resurgence may be distinguished from several other circumstances wherein previously learned responses recur. Spontaneous recovery similarly occurs following extinction of such responses, and after an absence of exposure to the extinction situation. It differs from resurgence in that other responses are not (systematically) reinforced during extinction of the response that later spontaneously recovers (but see Cleland, Guerin, Foster, and Temple [2001] for a discussion of circumstances in which resurgence may be considered an instance of spontaneous recovery). Reinstatement occurs when a previously learned response recurs during a period of response-independent delivery of the reinforcer previously used to maintain the response, but after that response first is extinguished. In reinstatement, the response recurs as a result of the evocative, discriminative stimulus effects of the now response-independent presentations of the previously established reinforcer (cf. Franks & Lattal, 1976). Response induction or response generalization may be considered instances of response recurrence in which topographies develop that are similar to the reinforced one. The distinguishing features of these phenomena are important for application because they may result in the re-emergence of responding under different conditions or in different forms. Although all fou","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"10 1","pages":"254-266"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58472569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：