یک روش کوتاه برای انجام یک ارزیابی تقویت منفی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|33986||1999||18 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6568 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Research in Developmental Disabilities, Volume 20, Issue 2, March–April 1999, Pages 107–124
A brief negative-reinforcement assessment was conducted with developmentally disabled children with severe destructive behavior. Five children were trained to engage in a simple escape response (e.g., a hand clap). Then each child was presented with a variety of stimuli or tasks that ranged on a scale from preferred to nonpreferred, based on parent ranking. The participant received a brief break from the stimuli or task, contingent on each escape response. For one child, an avoidance contingency was also implemented in which he could engage in the response to avoid the presentation of stimuli. Results showed that for each child, several stimuli were identified that may serve as effective negative reinforcers. Results also indicated that the procedure did not elicit any negative side effects for four children and low rates of destructive behavior for the fifth child. For one child, the results of the negative-reinforcement assessment were used to develop an effective treatment for destructive behavior. Additional applications of the reinforcement assessment to treatment interventions is discussed, as well as limitations to the procedure.
Previous research has shown that conducting reinforcer assessments may increase treatment efficacy with developmentally disabled individuals by motivating either the absence of destructive behavior or reinforcing an alternative, appropriate behavior (e.g., Piazza et al 1996a, Piazza et al 1996b, Piazza et al 1996c and Ringdahl et al 1997). Currently, reinforcer assessments include primarily positive reinforcers in the form of social and tangible items that have shown to be effective in increasing targeted behavior (e.g., Fisher et al 1992 and Pace et al 1985). However, nonpreferred events are common occurrences in the daily routine of most individuals, including those with developmental disabilities, and these events could affect the acquisition and maintenance of destructive behavior (Iwata, 1987). That is, nonpreferred activities may evoke a client’s destructive behavior, which in turn may motivate parents or teachers to avoid or terminate these activities, and thus negatively reinforce the destructive behavior. This hypothesis is supported by the results of an epidemiologic analysis conducted by Iwata et al. (1994a), which identified that negative reinforcement (i.e., escape from instructions) served as the most common variable maintaining self-injurious behavior in 152 individuals. In addition to the role negative reinforcement can play in maintaining destructive behavior, several studies have shown how negative reinforcement can be used to shape and maintain appropriate, alternative behavior. For example, negative reinforcement can be used during functional communication training with individuals who exhibit escape-maintained destructive behavior (e.g., Bird et al 1989, Carr and Durand 1985 and Wacker et al 1990). Fisher et al. (1993) trained participants, whose destructive behavior was maintained by escape from instructions, to use a communication response to escape from difficult tasks. Other studies have shown that negative reinforcement, in the form of a brief escape contingent on compliance, can be used to decrease noncompliance and other destructive behaviors (e.g., Marcus and Vollmer 1995 and Zarcone et al 1996). Given the likelihood that individuals may exhibit both appropriate and destructive behavior to escape or avoid events that are nonpreferred, it would be important to identify those stimuli empirically so that they can be manipulated therapeutically. One method is to identify nonpreferred events or stimuli during an experimental functional analysis, specifically during the escape or demand condition (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982). In this condition, academic, vocational, or self-care demands are presented and escape is provided contingent on destructive behavior. During the course of a functional analysis, specific demands that consistently produce destructive behavior could be identified and assessed directly as part of a negative reinforcer assessment. However, the demand condition of the functional analysis primarily assesses the role of self-care, academic, and vocational tasks only. Other stimuli, such as crowded conditions, transitioning, fatigue, and other forms of discomfort may not be assessed as potential negative reinforcers. Current methodologies for identifying negative-reinforcement contingencies also include caregiver interview or descriptive assessments. Interviews involve asking a caregiver to list events, tasks, or problem situations that often precede destructive behavior. For example, O’Neill, Horner, Albin, Storey, and Sprague (1990) have developed the Functional Analysis Interview Form that is conducted with caregivers to identify possible setting events or establishing operations occurring prior to destructive behavior (e.g., medications, sleep patterns, staffing patterns, diet, daily activities). In descriptive assessments, the individual is observed for an extended period and those items, tasks, or events that commonly precede destructive behavior could be identified as potential negative reinforcers (e.g., Carr et al 1997 and Mace and Lalli 1991). Although caregiver interviews or descriptive assessments have been used to identify positive reinforcers, recent evidence has shown that preference assessments involving forced-choice or paired-choice paradigms, in which the participant must choose between two items, results in better differentiation between items and are often the more reliable in identifying effective positive reinforcers Fisher and Mazur 1997, Northup et al 1996, Piazza et al 1996a, Piazza et al 1996b and Piazza et al 1996c. The development of this methodology has advanced significantly over the past several years; however, it would be very difficult to use this paradigm with negative reinforcers. The premise in forced-choice assessments is that the more preferred item will be selected over the less preferred item. With negative reinforcers, one would expect that it would be very difficult to get a child to select between nonpreferred items. Thus, the preference assessment may result in a list of items that are all nonpreferred, and there would be no defined hierarchy of preference. This may explain why there are currently no direct-preference-assessment procedures in use with developmentally disabled individuals that identify events or stimuli that will act as negative reinforcers. The purpose of the current investigation was to develop a method for identifying the nonpreferred events that occur in an individual’s daily schedule that might serve as effective negative reinforcers through their contingent removal. This negative-reinforcer assessment was developed based on the stimulus avoidance assessment used by Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Hagopian, and Langdon (1994) to empirically identify effective consequences for decreasing destructive behavior. In addition, side effects, either positive or negative, were monitored carefully to determine the potential aversiveness of the assessment. Finally, the stimuli identified in the assessment were used in a treatment analysis of destructive behavior with one study participant.