Manipulating Antecedent Conditions to Alter the Stimulus Control of Problem Behavior

1
Manipulating Antecedent Conditions to Alter the
Stimulus Control of Problem Behavior

• Raquel Torres
• Caldwell College Graduate Program in Applied
  Behavior Analysis

2
Manipulating Antecedent Conditions to Alter the
Stimulus Control of Problem Behavior Author

• Craig H. Kennedy
• Conducted the study at the University of Hawaii
• Spring of 1994
• Committee members
• John Baldwin
• James Halle
• Thomas Haring
• Robert Koegel
• Marta Valdez-Mencheca

3
Previous Research used Interspersal Techniques

• Carr, Newson, and Binkoff (1976) showed that when
  task demands were interspersed at low rates among
  high rates of social comments, near-zero levels
  of self-injury occurred.
• Horner et al. 1991 showed similar effects with
  interspersed requests.
• Mace et al., 1988 showed interspersing
  high-probability/low-probability response
  sequences showed reduction in problem behavior.

4
Previous Research used Fading Techniques

• Weeks Gaylord-Ross 1981, used fading for task
  difficulty by altering the physical
  characteristics of stimuli to achieve criterion.
• Heidorn Jensen 1984, used fading in stimuli
  along the dimension of rate.

5
What was the Purpose of this Study?

• Interspersal techniques although they appear to
  alter condition associated with demands the
  durability of these outcomes are restricted.
• Studies did not increase frequency of demands
  relative to social comments across time.

6
More questions ?

• Fading Techniques a concern is that no procedure
  is in effect to suppress problem behavior if it
  reoccurs during fading (Pace et al. 1993).
• These two techniques individually lacked in
  effectively manipulating problem behaviors.

7
Study wanted to

• Combine interspersal and fading techniques to
  immediately reduce problem behavior for 3
  students with severe disabilities.
• As well as reestablish high levels of task
  demands, and minimize reoccurrence of problem
  behaviors.

8
Method

• Participants
• Edgar, 20 yr. old, autism/moderate intellectual
  retardation
• Verbalizations, biting self, grabbing others
  during demands and alterations in schedule
• Sally, 20 yr. old, severe intellectual
  retardation, autistic-like behavior, cerebral
  palsy
• Screaming, hitting others, falling to the ground
  during instruction and demands
• Ernest, 20 yr. old, profound intellectual
  retardation and significant health impairments,
  complete paralysis except right arm.
• Hitting, throwing objects, hitting others during
  instruction
  
  

9
Method

• 3 students were nominated by 2 special education
  teachers because they engaged in stereotypy,
  self-injury, and/or aggression problem behaviors
• Setting
• Classroom
• Areas for cooking, cleaning dishes, and cabinets
  for storing materials

10
Method-Dependent Variable

• Frequency of the following
• Correct/incorrect task performance
• Accurate/inaccurate responding to instruction
  requests
• Noncompliance to a task request
• Failure to follow instructional request within
  15s
• Positive social affect
• Smiling, laughing, nodding yes, positive
  verbalization I like you
• Problem behavior
• Edgar-verbalization, biting self, grabbing others
• Sally- screaming, hitting others, falling on
  ground
• Ernest-throwing objects, hitting objects, hitting
  others

11
Method-Design Used

• Phase I
• Multielement design
• Analyze antecedent conditions associated with
  differing topographies of student behavior
• Phase II
• Multiprobe baseline across students
• Effects of manipulating antecedent conditions
• Phase III
• Multielement design
• 3 phases were constructed so that assessment of
  variables associated with problem behavior could
  be done before and after an analysis of the
  effects of the independent variable.

12
Method-Independent Variable

• Took previously learned skills
• Edgar stacked chairs, and Sally and Ernest
  shelved dishes
• Trials 4 trials per minute could be completed
• 1 trial took max. about 15 seconds to complete
• Each trial consisted of a single task demand
• Responded correctlyverbal remark/comment and
  problem behavior ignored
• Responded incorrectly brief pause and another
  task demand was delivered

13
Method-Phase I

• Phase I 4 antecedent conditions
• High demand, high comment
• High demand, low comment
• Low demand, high comment
• Low demand, low comment
• High demand conditions4 requests per minute
• Low demand conditions 1 request every 2.5
  minutes
• High comment conditionsremarks 6 per minute
• Low comment conditions no remark
• Sessions once per day, each condition occurred
  once per session
• Each condition lasted 5 min and a 5 min interval
  occurred between each condition (was asked to
  wait)

14
Method-Phase II

• Baseline session lasted 10 minutes
• Once or twice per day
• Baseline simulated typical one-on-one teaching
• Four demands per minute and no social
  remarks/comments
• Antecedent manipulation intervention
• 1 demand per 2.5 min, and 6 social remarks per
  minute
• Low frequency of problem behaviordemands
  gradually increased
• If problem behavior increaseddemands decreased
• Determined by visual inspection of trends between
  task demands and problem behavior

15
Method-Phase III

• Replicated phase I
• To reassess variables identified as problem
  behaviors during phase I

16
IOA

• Videotaped all sessions
• Continuous even recording was used
• 25 of sessions were assessed
• Mean agreement for occurrences across student
  behavior 89
• Mean agreement for occurrences across instructor
  behavior 93
• Mean agreement for nonoccurrence of instructor
  behavior 95

17
Social Validity

• Motivation Rating Scales (Dunlap Koegel 1980
  Koegel Egel 1979)
• 8 personnel from 2 special education classes and
  a supported employment organization served as
  raters
• Random video scenes of the students in phase II
  baseline and final days of intervention
• Treatment Evaluation Inventory (Kazdin, 1980)
• Same raters, scored different video scenes
• Random scenes from initial intervention to final
  days

18
Results

• Phase I
• Edgar-84 Sally-70 Ernest-44
• of the time responded correctly during high
  demand conditions
• 92 70 70
• of the time responded correctly during low
  demand conditions
• Results showed task demands related to increased
  levels of problem behavior, and social comments
  were related to increased levels of positive
  social affect for students

19
Results

• Phase II
• Edgar increased his mean of correct responses
  to task demands from 85 (baseline) to 92
  (intervention)
• Ernest increased his of correct responses to
  task demands from 42(baseline) to 76
  (intervention)
• Sally increased her of correct responses to
  task demands from 54 (baseline) to 90
  (intervention)
• Low frequencies of task demands were interspersed
  with high frequencies of social comments. Task
  demands were then faded. This resulted in
  reduction of problem behavior with task demands
  being increased.

20
Results

• Phase III
• High Demand Conditions
• Edgars correct responding occurred 86
• Sallys correct responding occurred 73
• Ernests correct responding occurred 43
• Low Demand Conditions
• Edger 88
• Sally 82
• Ernest 42
• Reduced problem behavior and increased work
  productivity when task demands were
  systematically varied in phase II.

21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
Considerations

• During phase II-Negative reinforcement extinction
  could have resulted. When students did not comply
  with completing a task they were not allowed to
  escape the task. Therefore problem behaviors
  could have decreased not because of social
  comments and low/high demands but because of the
  delivery of an aversive stimuli.
• Social comments were scheduled independent of
  student responding so they could have functioned
  as a reinforcer for task-related behavior.
• Study agrees further research should be explored
  in the role of stimulus control in relation to
  behavior in the applied setting.

24
Reference

• Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of
  self-injurious behavior A review of some
  hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 800-816.
• Carr, E. G., Newsom, C. D., Binkoff, J. A.
  (1976). Stimulus control of self-destructive
  behavior in a psychotic child. Journal of
  Abnormal Child Psychology, 4, 139-153.
• Carr, E. G., Newsom, C. D., Binkoff, J. A.
  (1980). Escape as a factor in the aggressive
  behavior of two retarded children. Journal of
  Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 101-117.
• Dunlap, G., Koegel, R. L. (1980). Motivating
  autistic children through stimulus variation.
  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13,
  619-628.
• Heidorn, S. D., Jensen, C. C. (1984).
  Generalization and maintenance of reduction of
  self-injurious behavior maintained by two types
  of reinforcement. Behavior Research and Therapy,
  22, 581-586.
• Horner, R. H., Baer, D. M. (1978).
  Multiple-probetechnique A variation on the
  multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior
  Analysis, 11, 460-473.
• Horner, R. H., Day, H. M., Sprague, J. R.,
  O'Brien, M., Heathfield, L. T. (1991).
  Interspersed requests A nonaversive procedure
  for reducing aggression and selfinjury during
  instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior
  Analysis, 24, 265-278.
• Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J.,
  Bauman, K. E., Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a
  functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and
  Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2,
  3-20.
• Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Kalsher, M. J.,
  Cowdery, G. E., Cataldo, M. F. (1990).
  Experimental analysis and extinction of
  self-injurious escape behavior. Journal of
  Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 11-27.
• Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Acceptability of
  alternative treatments for deviant child
  behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
  13, 259-273.
• Koegel, R. L., Egel, A. L. (1979). Motivating
  autistic children. Journal of Abnormal
  Psychology, 88, 418- 426.
• Mace, F. C., Hock, M. L., Lalli, J. S., West, B.
  J., Belfiore, P. J., Pinter, E., Brown, D. K.
  (1988). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of
  noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior
  Analysis, 21, 123-141.
• Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between the
  discriminative and motivational functions of
  stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
  Behavior, 37, 149-155.
• Pace, G. M., Iwata, B. A., Cowdery, G. E.,
  Andree, P. J., McIntyre, T. (1993). Stimulus
  (demand-frequency) fading during extinction of
  self-injurious escape behavior. Journal of
  Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 205-212.
• Parrish, J. M., Cataldo, M. F., Kolko, D. J.,
  Neef, N. A., Egel, A. L. (1986). Experimental
  analysis of response covariation among compliant
  and inappropriate behaviors. Journal of Applied
  Behavior Analysis, 19, 241-253.
• Repp, A. C., Harman, M. C., Felce, D., van Acker,
  R., Karsh, K. G. (1989). Conducting behavioral
  assessments on computer-collected data.
  Behavioral Assessment, 11, 57-71.
• Singer, G. H. S., Singer,J., Horner, R. H.
  (1987). Using pretask requests to increase the
  probability of compliance for students with
  severe disabilities. Journal of the Association
  for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 287-291.
• Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., Langer, S.
  N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying
  stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of
  Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 343-351.
• Weeks, M., Gaylord-Ross, R. (1981). Task
  difficulty and aberrant behavior in severely
  handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior
  Analysis, 14, 449-463.