自闭症青少年偏好通过提示程序处理逃避行为

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities Pub Date : 2024-04-29 DOI:10.1007/s10882-024-09965-5
Mindy C. Scheithauer, Summer B. Bottini, Meara X. H. McMahon
{"title":"自闭症青少年偏好通过提示程序处理逃避行为","authors":"Mindy C. Scheithauer, Summer B. Bottini, Meara X. H. McMahon","doi":"10.1007/s10882-024-09965-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is a common strategy for escape-maintained behaviors targeted for reduction (i.e., targeted behavior) exhibited by youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DRA often involves various methods of prompting to ensure the instruction or task remains in place until contingencies for the DRA are met. Currently, there is little research on client preference for these different prompting strategies in the context of DRA treatments. The current study includes four participants diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who exhibited targeted behavior maintained by escape from instructional tasks. We evaluated efficacy and preference for three prompting strategies (three-step least-to-most, repeated vocal prompt, or a single initial prompt) embedded in a DRA treatment aimed at reducing targeted behavior (e.g., aggression) and improving task completion. For all participants, more than one prompting strategy was effective when positive was combined with negative reinforcement in the DRA. We then implemented a concurrent-chains assessment to determine client preference, a rank-order task for caregiver preference, and an acceptability questionnaire for therapists. Two participants demonstrated a clear preference, and preference was obtained from a total of two caregivers and seven therapists. The initial and repeated verbal prompts were most preferred. Results are discussed in the context of client autonomy and incorporating choice in treatment planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":47565,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preference for Prompting Procedures to Address Escape-Maintained Behavior in Autistic Adolescents\",\"authors\":\"Mindy C. Scheithauer, Summer B. Bottini, Meara X. H. McMahon\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10882-024-09965-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is a common strategy for escape-maintained behaviors targeted for reduction (i.e., targeted behavior) exhibited by youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DRA often involves various methods of prompting to ensure the instruction or task remains in place until contingencies for the DRA are met. Currently, there is little research on client preference for these different prompting strategies in the context of DRA treatments. The current study includes four participants diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who exhibited targeted behavior maintained by escape from instructional tasks. We evaluated efficacy and preference for three prompting strategies (three-step least-to-most, repeated vocal prompt, or a single initial prompt) embedded in a DRA treatment aimed at reducing targeted behavior (e.g., aggression) and improving task completion. For all participants, more than one prompting strategy was effective when positive was combined with negative reinforcement in the DRA. We then implemented a concurrent-chains assessment to determine client preference, a rank-order task for caregiver preference, and an acceptability questionnaire for therapists. Two participants demonstrated a clear preference, and preference was obtained from a total of two caregivers and seven therapists. The initial and repeated verbal prompts were most preferred. Results are discussed in the context of client autonomy and incorporating choice in treatment planning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-024-09965-5\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-024-09965-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

差异化强化替代行为(DRA)是针对智力和发育障碍青少年表现出的旨在减少逃避行为(即目标行为)的一种常见策略。DRA 通常涉及各种提示方法,以确保在 DRA 的应急措施得到满足之前,指令或任务仍然有效。目前,有关客户在 DRA 治疗中对这些不同提示策略的偏好的研究还很少。目前的研究包括四名被诊断患有自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)的参与者,他们表现出的目标行为是通过逃避教学任务来维持的。我们评估了三种提示策略(三步从少到多、重复发声提示或单次初始提示)的有效性和偏好性,这些策略被嵌入到旨在减少目标行为(如攻击行为)和提高任务完成度的 DRA 治疗中。对所有参与者而言,当 DRA 中的正强化与负强化相结合时,不止一种提示策略是有效的。然后,我们实施了一项并行链评估以确定客户的偏好,一项排序任务以确定照顾者的偏好,以及一份治疗师可接受性问卷。两名参与者表现出了明确的偏好,共有两名护理人员和七名治疗师表示出了偏好。最初和重复的口头提示最受偏爱。研究结果将结合客户自主权和治疗计划中的选择进行讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Preference for Prompting Procedures to Address Escape-Maintained Behavior in Autistic Adolescents

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is a common strategy for escape-maintained behaviors targeted for reduction (i.e., targeted behavior) exhibited by youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities. DRA often involves various methods of prompting to ensure the instruction or task remains in place until contingencies for the DRA are met. Currently, there is little research on client preference for these different prompting strategies in the context of DRA treatments. The current study includes four participants diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who exhibited targeted behavior maintained by escape from instructional tasks. We evaluated efficacy and preference for three prompting strategies (three-step least-to-most, repeated vocal prompt, or a single initial prompt) embedded in a DRA treatment aimed at reducing targeted behavior (e.g., aggression) and improving task completion. For all participants, more than one prompting strategy was effective when positive was combined with negative reinforcement in the DRA. We then implemented a concurrent-chains assessment to determine client preference, a rank-order task for caregiver preference, and an acceptability questionnaire for therapists. Two participants demonstrated a clear preference, and preference was obtained from a total of two caregivers and seven therapists. The initial and repeated verbal prompts were most preferred. Results are discussed in the context of client autonomy and incorporating choice in treatment planning.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: The Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities is an interdisciplinary forum for the publication of original research and clinical reports from a variety of fields serving persons with developmental and physical disabilities. Submissions from researchers, clinicians, and related professionals in the fields of psychology, rehabilitation, special education, kinesiology, counseling, social work, psychiatry, nursing, and rehabilitation medicine are considered. Investigations utilizing group comparisons as well as single-case experimental designs are of primary interest. In addition, case studies that are of particular clinical relevance or that describe innovative evaluation and intervention techniques are welcome. All research and clinical reports should contain sufficient procedural detail so that readers can clearly understand what was done, how it was done, and why the strategy was selected. Rigorously conducted replication studies utilizing group and single-case designs are welcome irrespective of results obtained. In addition, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and theoretical discussions that contribute substantially to understanding the problems and strengths of persons with developmental and physical disabilities are considered for publication. Authors are encouraged to preregister empirical studies, replications, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses in a relevant public database and to include such information with their submission to the journal. Authors are also encouraged, where possible and applicable, to deposit data that support the findings of their research in a public repository (see detailed “Research Data Policy” module in the journal’s Instructions for Authors). In response to the need for increased clinical and research endeavors with persons with developmental and physical disabilities, the journal is cross-categorical and unbiased methodologically.
期刊最新文献
Incorporating Choice: Examining the Beliefs and Practices of Behavior Analysts Working with Individuals with Disabilities Differences in Executive Functioning for children with additional learning needs and Autism Spectrum Disorder or Attachment Disorder Enhancing Assent and Treatment Outcomes: A Case Study on Responding to Aversive Ambient Auditory Stimuli for an Autistic Adult Perspectives of Transition-Aged Youth with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities about Self-Advocacy and Civic Engagement The Use of Multisensory Environments with Individuals with Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review
×
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