|
| Determining the Function of Aggressive Behavior: Experimental Demonstrations |
| Friday, May 22, 2009 |
| 6:00 PM–9:00 PM |
| North 227 A |
| Area: CBM/AUT; Domain: Applied Behavior Analysis |
| CE Instructor: |
| ENNIO C. CIPANI (National University) |
| Description: This 3-hour workshop will cover assessment methods that involve a manipulation of variables to determine the function of aggression in school and home instructional settings. These methods include FAB or analogue assessment tests, trigger analysis and in-situ hypothesis tests. The author’s function-based, diagnostic classification system (Cipani & Schock, 2007) provides the framework for setting up experimental test conditions for these various methods. This function-based diagnostic system involves four major categories: (1) direct access, DA 1.0; (2) direct escape, DE 3.0; (3) socially mediated access, SMA 2.0 and; (4) socially mediated escape, SME 4.0. There are sub-categories for each of these major categories that delineate specific reinforcers, which form the basis of the selected tests.
The last part of the workshop will examine the operant properties of the replacement behavior. A diagnostic system will be used to classify the strength of replacement behaviors (Cipani & Schock, 2007). Analogue tests for determining why non-aggressive behavior is not occurring under relevant motivational conditions will be presented. |
| Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of the workshop, the participant will be:
Able to generate an analogue assessment testing a specific hypothesis regarding function of aggressive behavior (or its precursor), consisting of two or more test conditions
Able to identify trigger analysis test conditions, including the manipulation of the relevant M.O.
Able to identify test requirements for an in-situ hypothesis test
Able to identify what is not an FTBA
Able to identify two diagnostic categories for replacement behavior
Able to generate an analogue assessment testing which hypothesis (i.e., mis-directed contingencies or inept repertoire) is probably correct, i.e., reason why the replacement behavior is not occurring under relevant motivational conditions |
| Activities: Participants will work in small groups on designing analogue tests on specific hypotheses. They will also have class assignments that entail delineating how a trigger analysis would be deployed as well as in-situ hypothesis tests in education and residential settings. |
| Audience: Licensed professionals needing CE units, BCBAs and graduate students |
| Content Area: Practice |
| Instruction Level: Basic |