Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Function-based treatments are often highly effective in the treatment of destructive behavior. However, in cases of severe or persistent destructive behavior, punishment may be a necessary treatment component. The stimulus avoidance assessment is a preassessment used to guide the selection of punishers in specialized clinical settings. However, few published studies have examined reliability outcomes for this assessment. In the present study, we conducted a retrospective review of eight cases in which clinicians conducted multiple series of the stimulus avoidance assessment to assess exact, within-1 ranking, and polarity index reliability measures. We found poor reliability outcomes across cases. We discuss these findings in the context of the clinical use of this assessment and suggest a number of avenues for continued research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 00:00:00 GMT
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Previous basic research has shown that signaling the extinction component of a compound schedule can be aversive and nonpreferred. However, such discriminative stimuli are common when thinning schedules of reinforcement in practice, and they provide several advantages to clinicians. A limitation of previous applied studies on different arrangements of discriminative stimuli is that researchers have used identical stimuli to signal the availability of reinforcement across conditions that do and do not signal extinction, often doubling exposure to the stimulus signaling the availability of reinforcement. The present experiments corrected this limitation by comparing multiple-schedule arrangements that do and do not signal extinction when unique stimuli signal each component across conditions. Results from three participants indicated that both multiple-schedule arrangements were similarly efficacious when teaching the successive discrimination. However, response patterns differed when testing under a concurrent-operants arrangement, suggesting different patterns of preference across various multiple-schedule arrangements. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 00:00:00 GMT
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Physical guidance is a common treatment component to treat destructive behavior reinforced by escape from demands. Despite its demonstrated effectiveness in behavior reduction and skill acquisition programming, physical guidance may be contraindicated in some situations (e.g., touch aversion, large stature, history of physical abuse). The present study systematically evaluated the efficacy of alternative instructional strategies to teach chained tasks to four participants. A multiple opportunity probe (MOP), a single opportunity probe (SOP), and physical guidance were used to teach three equally matched arbitrary chained tasks in a multiple baseline design. Although both physical guidance and the MOP resulted in mastery, all participants mastered tasks more efficiently using the MOP and participants preferred the instructional methods without physical guidance (i.e., SOP, MOP). The MOP was then used to efficiently teach each participant three generalization tasks. Results suggest the utility of the MOP as a socially valid alternative to physical guidance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 00:00:00 GMT
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), which often arranges extinction (EXT) for destructive behavior, is an effective treatment to reduce destructive behavior. However, the use of EXT has several limitations resulting in practitioners implementing DRA without EXT. During these treatments, practitioners often manipulate reinforcer dimensions to favor appropriate behavior. The pre-identification of reinforcer dimensions to which an individual’s behavior is sensitive may be important to inform efficacious DRA without EXT treatments. In Study 1, we extended developed a systematic methodology to assess individual sensitivity to reinforcer dimensions. In Study 2, we implemented two DRA without EXT procedures to assess if individuals allocated responding towards the response that produced baseline reinforcer parameters relative to the response that produced the parametrically changed reinforcer to which the individuals demonstrated sensitivity during Study 1. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:00:00 GMT
Subscription journal
