|
| The Effects of Procedural Integrity on Skill Acquisition and Implementation of Behavior Intervention Plans. |
| Monday, May 25, 2009 |
| 1:30 PM–2:50 PM |
| North 124 B |
| Area: AUT; Domain: Applied Behavior Analysis |
| Chair: Shawn E. Kenyon (NECC) |
| Discussant: Ronnie Detrich (Wing Institute) |
| Abstract: The term procedural integrity refers to the implementation of an intervention as intended (Codding, Feinberg, Dunn, & Pace, 2005) or as the inter-observer agreement measures on the occurrence or non-occurrence of the independent variables (Billingsley, White, & Munson, 1980). High procedural integrity involves an experimenter measuring what they intended to measure, or implementing a treatment plan exactly as it was intended. The current symposium addresses the issue of procedural integrity with respect to skill acquisition and behavior plan implementation. The first study examines varying levels of procedural integrity with respect to prompt delays and the observed effect on the acquisition of visual-visual match to sample tasks. Results from this study suggest a correlation between low integrity levels and the number of errors committed. The two other studies examine systems for improving procedural integrity regarding behavior plan implementation. A system of monitoring staff performance was developed and performance feedback based on the integrity with which behavior plans were implemented was chosen as an intervention. Results from both studies further confirm that performance feedback is an effective intervention for improving procedural integrity. |
| |
| Varying Procedural Integrity Using Progressive Prompt Delay to Teach Visual-Visual Stimulus Relations |
| PAULA RIBEIRO BRAGA-KENYON (NECC), Katherine Helen Yates (New England Center for Children) |
| Abstract: Procedural integrity is a measure of how the independent variables are implemented and is an important component of behavior analytic application and research. This study examined the effects of varying levels of procedural integrity (i.e., 100%, 45%, and 0%) on discrimination training using a progressive prompt delay procedure (i.e., 0 seconds, 3 seconds, and 5 seconds) to teach visual-visual stimulus relations. Three typical adults, who had received previous training on implementing match-to-sample discrete trial procedures, took part in the study. An alternating treatments design was used to counterbalance conditions across the three participants. Inter-observer agreement (IOA) was collected for 100% of the sessions and agreement was 100%. Results showed that: 1) the frequency of errors emitted was higher when integrity was reduced to levels below 100%; 2) discriminations were acquired slower when integrity levels were lower; and 3) one of the participants did not reach the mastery criterion during the 0% integrity condition. |
| |
| The Effect of Performance Feedback on the Program-Wide Integrity of Plan Implementation |
| FRANCES A. PERRIN (Bancroft NeuroHealth), Denise Marzullo (Bancroft Neurohealth) |
| Abstract: An evaluation of the source of treatment failures is necessary to successful remediation. Two possible sources of treatment failure include intervention ineffectiveness and lack of implementation integrity. When an intervention is implemented inconsistently, the primary goal is to correct the problem prior to making any changes to the intervention itself. However, monitoring and maintaining high levels of treatment integrity in an applied setting can be challenging. Research on performance feedback has shown it to be a more effective method than traditional consultation for increasing implementation of academic and behavioral interventions (Noell et al., 2005). In the present study, we developed a program-wide system for monitoring treatment integrity in a behavioral stabilization program. The performance of all staff working in the program was monitored regularly by 16 supervisors trained to evaluate treatment integrity and to provide performance feedback. Performance feedback was evaluated in a multiple baseline across living units design. Results demonstrated the effectiveness of this system to increase the integrity with which staff implemented components of behavior and service plans. |
| |
| An Evaluation of a Program-Wide Process for Improving Treatment Integrity |
| CHRISTINA M. VORNDRAN (Bancroft NeuroHealth), Alfred Brewin, IV (Bancroft NeuroHealth), Jenna Taylor (Bancroft Neurohealth) |
| Abstract: Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) designed to decrease problem behaviors and increase functional replacement behaviors are commonly developed for individuals with developmental disabilities. When a BIP is reported to be ineffective it can be difficult to determine the cause particularly if levels of treatment integrity are unknown or believed to be low. Research has established effective procedures for monitoring and improving treatment integrity of BIPs (Codding, Feinberg, Dunn, & Pace, 2005). In the present study, a multiple baseline across program design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of individualized and group performance feedback for increasing treatment integrity among staff working in two programs for individuals with disabilities. Results indicated that individualized performance feedback immediately produced significant improvement in all components of treatment implementation. Additional data analysis identified treatment components frequently implemented incorrectly by many of the program staff. Group performance feedback was then provided and shown to further improve treatment implementation. Results were shown to maintain for up to a year. These results replicate and extend the performance feedback literature. |
|
| |