Manipulating Manipulating Antecedent Antecedent

Conditions to Alter Conditions to Alter the Stimulus the Stimulus

Control of Problem Control of Problem BehaviorBehaviorRaquel Torres Raquel Torres

Caldwell College Graduate Caldwell College Graduate Program in Applied Behavior Program in Applied Behavior

AnalysisAnalysis

Manipulating Antecedent Manipulating Antecedent Conditions to Alter the Stimulus Conditions to Alter the Stimulus

Control of Problem Behavior Control of Problem Behavior AuthorAuthor

Craig H. Kennedy Craig H. Kennedy Conducted the study at the University of Conducted the study at the University of

HawaiiHawaii Spring of 1994Spring of 1994 Committee membersCommittee members

John BaldwinJohn Baldwin James HalleJames Halle Thomas HaringThomas Haring Robert KoegelRobert Koegel Marta Valdez-MenchecaMarta Valdez-Mencheca

Previous Research used Previous Research used Interspersal TechniquesInterspersal Techniques

Carr, Newson, and Binkoff (1976) showed Carr, Newson, and Binkoff (1976) showed that when task demands were that when task demands were interspersed at low rates among high interspersed at low rates among high rates of social comments, near-zero levels rates of social comments, near-zero levels of self-injury occurred. of self-injury occurred.

Horner et al. 1991 showed similar effects Horner et al. 1991 showed similar effects with interspersed requests.with interspersed requests.

Mace et al., 1988 showed interspersing Mace et al., 1988 showed interspersing high-probability/low-probability response high-probability/low-probability response sequences showed reduction in problem sequences showed reduction in problem behavior. behavior.

Previous Research used Previous Research used Fading TechniquesFading Techniques

Weeks & Gaylord-Ross 1981, used Weeks & Gaylord-Ross 1981, used fading for task difficulty by altering fading for task difficulty by altering the physical characteristics of stimuli the physical characteristics of stimuli to achieve criterion.to achieve criterion.

Heidorn & Jensen 1984, used fading Heidorn & Jensen 1984, used fading in stimuli along the dimension of rate. in stimuli along the dimension of rate.

What was the Purpose of What was the Purpose of this Study?this Study?

Interspersal techniques: although they Interspersal techniques: although they appear to alter condition associated appear to alter condition associated with demands the durability of these with demands the durability of these outcomes are restricted.outcomes are restricted.

Studies did not increase frequency of Studies did not increase frequency of demands relative to social comments demands relative to social comments across time.across time.

More questions ?More questions ?

Fading Techniques: a concern is that no Fading Techniques: a concern is that no procedure is in effect to suppress procedure is in effect to suppress problem behavior if it reoccurs during problem behavior if it reoccurs during fading (Pace et al. 1993). fading (Pace et al. 1993).

These two techniques individually These two techniques individually lacked in effectively manipulating lacked in effectively manipulating problem behaviors.problem behaviors.

Study wanted to:Study wanted to:

Combine interspersal and fading Combine interspersal and fading techniques to immediately reduce techniques to immediately reduce problem behavior for 3 students with problem behavior for 3 students with severe disabilities.severe disabilities.

As well as reestablish high levels of As well as reestablish high levels of task demands, and minimize task demands, and minimize reoccurrence of problem behaviors. reoccurrence of problem behaviors.

MethodMethod ParticipantsParticipants

Edgar, 20 yr. old, autism/moderate intellectual Edgar, 20 yr. old, autism/moderate intellectual retardationretardation

Verbalizations, biting self, grabbing others during Verbalizations, biting self, grabbing others during demands and alterations in scheduledemands and alterations in schedule

Sally, 20 yr. old, severe intellectual retardation, Sally, 20 yr. old, severe intellectual retardation, autistic-like behavior, & cerebral palsyautistic-like behavior, & cerebral palsy

Screaming, hitting others, falling to the ground Screaming, hitting others, falling to the ground during instruction and demands during instruction and demands

Ernest, 20 yr. old, profound intellectual Ernest, 20 yr. old, profound intellectual retardation and significant health impairments, retardation and significant health impairments, complete paralysis except right arm. complete paralysis except right arm.

Hitting, throwing objects, hitting others during Hitting, throwing objects, hitting others during instruction instruction

MethodMethod

3 students were nominated by 2 3 students were nominated by 2 special education teachers because special education teachers because they engaged in stereotypy, self-injury, they engaged in stereotypy, self-injury, and/or aggression problem behaviorsand/or aggression problem behaviors

Setting:Setting: ClassroomClassroom

Areas for cooking, cleaning dishes, and Areas for cooking, cleaning dishes, and cabinets for storing materialscabinets for storing materials

Method-Dependent Method-Dependent VariableVariable Frequency of the following:Frequency of the following:

Correct/incorrect task performance Correct/incorrect task performance Accurate/inaccurate responding to instruction Accurate/inaccurate responding to instruction

requestsrequests Noncompliance to a task requestNoncompliance to a task request

Failure to follow instructional request within 15sFailure to follow instructional request within 15s Positive social affectPositive social affect

Smiling, laughing, nodding “yes”, positive Smiling, laughing, nodding “yes”, positive verbalization “I like you”verbalization “I like you”

Problem behaviorProblem behavior Edgar-verbalization, biting self, grabbing othersEdgar-verbalization, biting self, grabbing others Sally- screaming, hitting others, falling on groundSally- screaming, hitting others, falling on ground Ernest-throwing objects, hitting objects, hitting Ernest-throwing objects, hitting objects, hitting

othersothers

Method-Design UsedMethod-Design Used Phase IPhase I

Multielement designMultielement design Analyze antecedent conditions associated with differing Analyze antecedent conditions associated with differing

topographies of student behaviortopographies of student behavior

Phase IIPhase II Multiprobe baseline across studentsMultiprobe baseline across students

Effects of manipulating antecedent conditionsEffects of manipulating antecedent conditions

Phase IIIPhase III Multielement design Multielement design

3 phases were constructed so that assessment 3 phases were constructed so that assessment of variables associated with problem behavior of variables associated with problem behavior could be done before and after an analysis of could be done before and after an analysis of the effects of the independent variable. the effects of the independent variable.

Method-Independent Method-Independent VariableVariableTook previously learned skills Took previously learned skills

Edgar stacked chairs, and Sally and Ernest Edgar stacked chairs, and Sally and Ernest shelved dishesshelved dishes Trials: 4 trials per minute could be completed Trials: 4 trials per minute could be completed

1 trial took max. about 15 seconds to complete1 trial took max. about 15 seconds to complete Each trial consisted of a single task demandEach trial consisted of a single task demand

Responded correctly=verbal Responded correctly=verbal remark/comment and problem behavior remark/comment and problem behavior ignoredignored

Responded incorrectly= brief pause Responded incorrectly= brief pause and another task demand was deliveredand another task demand was delivered

Method-Phase I Method-Phase I Phase I – 4 antecedent conditionsPhase I – 4 antecedent conditions

High demand, high commentHigh demand, high comment High demand, low commentHigh demand, low comment Low demand, high commentLow demand, high comment Low demand, low commentLow demand, low comment

High demand conditions=4 requests per minuteHigh demand conditions=4 requests per minute Low demand conditions= 1 request every 2.5 minutesLow demand conditions= 1 request every 2.5 minutes High comment conditions=remarks 6 per minuteHigh comment conditions=remarks 6 per minute Low comment conditions= no remarkLow comment conditions= no remark

Sessions once per day, each condition Sessions once per day, each condition occurred once per sessionoccurred once per session

Each condition lasted 5 min and a 5 min Each condition lasted 5 min and a 5 min interval occurred between each condition interval occurred between each condition (was asked to wait)(was asked to wait)

Method-Phase IIMethod-Phase II Baseline: session lasted 10 minutesBaseline: session lasted 10 minutes

Once or twice per dayOnce or twice per day Baseline simulated typical one-on-one teachingBaseline simulated typical one-on-one teaching

Four demands per minute and no social Four demands per minute and no social remarks/commentsremarks/comments

Antecedent manipulation interventionAntecedent manipulation intervention 1 demand per 2.5 min, and 6 social remarks per 1 demand per 2.5 min, and 6 social remarks per

minuteminute Low frequency of problem behavior=demands Low frequency of problem behavior=demands

gradually increasedgradually increased If problem behavior increased=demands decreasedIf problem behavior increased=demands decreased Determined by visual inspection of trends between task Determined by visual inspection of trends between task

demands and problem behaviordemands and problem behavior

Method-Phase IIIMethod-Phase III

Replicated phase IReplicated phase I

To reassess variables identified as To reassess variables identified as problem behaviors during phase Iproblem behaviors during phase I

IOAIOA

Videotaped all sessionsVideotaped all sessions Continuous even recording was used Continuous even recording was used

25% of sessions were assessed25% of sessions were assessed Mean agreement for occurrences across Mean agreement for occurrences across

student behavior 89%student behavior 89% Mean agreement for occurrences across Mean agreement for occurrences across

instructor behavior 93% instructor behavior 93% Mean agreement for nonoccurrence of Mean agreement for nonoccurrence of

instructor behavior 95%instructor behavior 95%

Social ValiditySocial Validity Motivation Rating Scales (Dunlap & Koegel Motivation Rating Scales (Dunlap & Koegel

1980; Koegel & Egel 1979)1980; Koegel & Egel 1979) 8 personnel from 2 special education classes 8 personnel from 2 special education classes

and a supported employment organization and a supported employment organization served as ratersserved as raters

Random video scenes of the students in phase Random video scenes of the students in phase II baseline and final days of interventionII baseline and final days of intervention

Treatment Evaluation Inventory (Kazdin, Treatment Evaluation Inventory (Kazdin, 1980)1980) Same raters, scored different video scenesSame raters, scored different video scenes Random scenes from initial intervention to final Random scenes from initial intervention to final

daysdays

ResultsResults Phase I Phase I Edgar-84% Sally-70% Ernest-44% Edgar-84% Sally-70% Ernest-44%

of the time responded correctly during of the time responded correctly during high demand conditionshigh demand conditions

92%92% 70% 70% 70% 70%of the time responded correctly during low of the time responded correctly during low demand conditionsdemand conditions

Results showed task demands related to Results showed task demands related to increased levels of problem behavior, and increased levels of problem behavior, and social comments were related to increased social comments were related to increased levels of positive social affect for studentslevels of positive social affect for students

ResultsResults Phase IIPhase II Edgar increased his mean % of correct responses to Edgar increased his mean % of correct responses to

task demands from 85% (baseline) to 92% task demands from 85% (baseline) to 92% (intervention)(intervention)

Ernest increased his % of correct responses to task Ernest increased his % of correct responses to task demands from 42%(baseline) to 76% (intervention)demands from 42%(baseline) to 76% (intervention)

Sally increased her % of correct responses to task Sally increased her % of correct responses to task demands from 54% (baseline) to 90% (intervention)demands from 54% (baseline) to 90% (intervention)

Low frequencies of task demands were interspersed Low frequencies of task demands were interspersed with high frequencies of social comments. Task with high frequencies of social comments. Task demands were then faded. This resulted in reduction demands were then faded. This resulted in reduction of problem behavior with task demands being of problem behavior with task demands being increased. increased.

ResultsResults Phase IIIPhase III High Demand ConditionsHigh Demand Conditions

Edgar’s correct responding occurred 86% Edgar’s correct responding occurred 86% Sally’s correct responding occurred 73% Sally’s correct responding occurred 73% Ernest’s correct responding occurred 43%Ernest’s correct responding occurred 43%

Low Demand ConditionsLow Demand Conditions Edger 88%Edger 88% Sally 82%Sally 82% Ernest 42%Ernest 42%

Reduced problem behavior and increased work Reduced problem behavior and increased work productivity when task demands were productivity when task demands were systematically varied in phase II. systematically varied in phase II.

ConsiderationsConsiderations During phase II-Negative reinforcement During phase II-Negative reinforcement

extinction could have resulted. When students did extinction could have resulted. When students did not comply with completing a task they were not not comply with completing a task they were not allowed to escape the task. Therefore problem allowed to escape the task. Therefore problem behaviors could have decreased not because of behaviors could have decreased not because of social comments and low/high demands but social comments and low/high demands but because of the delivery of an aversive stimuli. because of the delivery of an aversive stimuli.

Social comments were scheduled independent of Social comments were scheduled independent of student responding so they could have functioned student responding so they could have functioned as a reinforcer for task-related behavior. as a reinforcer for task-related behavior.

Study agrees further research should be explored Study agrees further research should be explored in the role of stimulus control in relation to in the role of stimulus control in relation to behavior in the applied setting. behavior in the applied setting.

ReferenceReference 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.