7710 replies posts
3 hours agoKarissa Milano Scenario 1COLLAPSE
The behavior analysis did conduct a functional assessment as well as identified the controlling variables for the child’s target behavior. This is crucial because the behavior analyst followed the ethical code 3.0 behavior-analytic assessment. The ethical code 3.0 (a) states that behavior analysts should always conduct assessments before implementing treatments ( Bailey & Burch, 2016). Although, the behavior analyst conducted the assessment, the behavior therapist should also get written consent from the client ( Bailey & Burch, 2016). Code 4.04 approving behavior change programs explain the important of getting written consent from the client( Bailey & Burch, 2016). The behavior therapist should have gotten written consent which explain the client’s goals and new procedures that will be introduced ( Bailey & Burch, 2016). In this scenario it does not discuss whether the behavior analyst got written consent from the mother. Code 4.50 is also important because the behavior analyst should describe the objectives of the behavior changing programing in writing to the client in a way they can understand it (Bailey & Burch, 2016). It is crucial for the behavior analyst to discuss this information with the clients to ensure that the clients understand everything and have time during the day to take the data. If the mother does not have time to collect the data I would change the intervention to fit her availability or chose a different intervention. I would make sure before implementing anything that I get the mothers consent and make sure she is okay with the treatment.
If these attempts fail then the behavior analyst should revert to code number 2.15 (d). The behavior analyst in this situation should review this goal due to the fact the mother is not collecting the data that is needed for the client. This code explains discounting services only when the client no longer needs the service is not benefiting from the service, is being harmed by the service, or when the client request to discounting services (Bailey 7 Burch, 2016). If the behavior analyst feels the client is really not benefiting from the services than the services may be discounted. This would be the very last resort the behavior analyst reverts to.
Bailey, J., & Burch, M. (2016). Ethics for behavior analysts. ProQuest Ebook
7711 REPLY POSTS
22 hours agoCassandra Huerta U5 Discussion AttachmentCOLLAPSE
I intend to research aggression in children with autism. Aggression is defined as any instance the individual intentionally makes physical contact forcefully with another individual using their body or an object to leave a visible mark, cause an audible sound, or causes the other individual to make an audible sound of pain such as “ouch”, or “that hurts” or causes them to cry; where tears excrete from their eyes.
Newcomb et al. (2019) studies a 13-year-old boy diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, Ted, with underdeveloped communication skills and problem behavior. The study examined aggression maintained by access to physical attention by two preparations of a functional analysis (FA). After the FA, an assessment was performed to identify stimuli that competed with problem behavior. After the assessment, a non-contingent reinforcement (NCR) intervention, using competing stimuli, was implemented to reduce rates of aggression. Results indicated that implementation of the NCR intervention was followed by decreased rates, more predictable patterns, and diminished intensity of aggressive behavior.
A strength of this treatment is that the results indicate social validity by the decline in the intensity of aggression. However, some limitations of the treatment are that internal validity may be difficult to obtain because aggressive physical contact was unavoidable, therefore, it was not always realistic to expect staff to withhold physical attention. Also, since Ted attended a private specialized education facility, the external validity may be weak, seeing that schools may not be able to have the necessary staff or resources for more intensive treatment settings, therefore, may be less generalizable to other subjects or settings.
Figure 1 shows the rate of aggression across school days. During assessment and standard treatment aggression is extremely variable. However, after the phase change line of non-contingent reinforcement intervention (NCR) and competing stimulus (CS) the results show that the level of aggression is low and becomes stable.
Figure 1. Rate of aggression (left ordinate) and daily count of emergency safety procedures used (right ordinate) across school days; during assessment and standard treatments, and following implementation of the non-contingent reinforcement intervention.
MS Psychology | Applied Behavior Analysis
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
Newcomb, E. T., Wright, J. A., & Camblin, J. G. (2019). Assessment and treatment of aggressive behavior maintained by access to physical attention. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 19(3), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000136
3 days agoSophia Augedahl Unit 5 Discussion AttachmentCOLLAPSE
I intend to research the behavior of elopement for the Unit 10 assignment. Preliminary searches have demonstrated a sufficient foundation of research to evaluate many aspects of this behavior. A study by Boyle et al. (2019) studied treatment of elopement without blocking the child, Abby, a six year old diagnosed with ASD. In this specific study, it was defined as Abby exceeding one meter away from the therapist without permission (Boyle et al., 2019). All sessions with Abby were conducted in an office building a large hall, which was intentional, as Abby’s mother stated she frequently eloped in narrow settings (Boyle et al., 2019). Because blocking was not an implemented strategy, safety measures including locked doors and therapists in entryways were in place to ensure Abby never completely left the setting (Boyle et al., 2019). The design of this study is a reversal design (ABAB) with changing-criterion design embedded within the study (Boyle et al., 2019). A functional analysis screening tool was also conducted, providing information on forms of reinforcement and conditions (Boyle et al., 2019). Forms of validity are not specifically addressed in this study, but IOA was found to be 100% for FA sessions and 95.9% for treatment trials (Boyle et al., 2019). Based on the presented research, internal and social validity looks promising in this study, and it would be worthwhile to further research validity specifically. A baseline was conducted and during this and treatment trials, no consequences were given if Abby eloped (Boyle et al., 2019). Latency was measured as time between therapist’s statement and Abby engaging in eloping (Boyle et al., 2019). During treatment phase, Abby was able to elope at any point during trials because her mother indicated she wanted a treatment not reliant on blocking (Boyle et al., 2019). Based on the data collected and graphs provided, Abby’s behavior involved multiple contingencies, including automatic reinforcement (Boyle et al., 2019).
A strength of this is that Abby achieved a terminal criterion of 54 seconds and no longer attended sessions (Boyle et al., 2019). Another strength is that two generalization probes were conducted, and elopement successfully decreased (Boyle et al., 2019). Because it is difficult to treat behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement, one limitation is that more research is necessary for treating elopement in cases such as these (Boyle et al., 2019). Another limitation is that contingencies for elopement could not be accurately determined (Boyle et al., 2019). Future research could focus on the components of multiple contingencies, including the extent to which each contingency contributes to the elopement (Boyle et al., 2019). Another potential for future research could be conducting sessions in other settings where access to elope is not always available (Boyle et al, 2019). In conclusion, treatment implemented was successful in decreasing elopement, but further research is needed to validate findings and explore components of this study.
Figure 2 below demonstrates results of treatment utilized. Dotted horizontal lines indicate criteria for Abby staying next to the therapist before giving permission to run (Boyle et al., 2019). Variability is the extent that repeated measures produce different outcomes (Cooper et al., 2020). A high amount of variability demonstrates that the practitioner did not have sufficient control over factors impacting behavior (Cooper et al., 2020). Overall, shown in the Figure 2, there is a low degree of variability for nearly 80 trials conducted and a stable level of responding. There is an initially low, stable level of responding in baseline phases, followed by a fairly stable and increasingly high level of responding as trials continue in the rule phase. Level is the value on the vertical axis where measures of a behavior converge (Cooper et al., 2020). The less variability, the less need for a mean level to be measured (Cooper et al., 2020). In the rule phase in this study, there are only six data points that are extremely far off the mean level line (trials 44, 45, 46, 58, 59, 60), indicating that the data is stable and has low variability overall. Lastly, trend is the overall direction taken by data (Cooper et al., 2020). A trend is demonstrated by a line drawn through the data and can be increasing, decreasing, or have zero trend (Cooper et al., 2020). Figure 2 shows a gradually increasing stable trend as trials are conducted over treatment phases and time.
Figure 2. Treatment evaluation for elopement
Boyle, M. A., Keenan, G., Forck, K. L., & Curtis K. S. (2019). Treatment of elopement without blocking with a child with autism. Behavior Modification, 43(1), 132-145
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis. Pearson Education