|Recent Research on Maximizing Effects of Reinforcement and Maintenance Procedures|
|Sunday, May 25, 2014|
|2:00 PM–2:50 PM |
|W187c (McCormick Place Convention Center)|
|Area: DDA/AUT; Domain: Applied Research|
|Chair: Tina Sidener (Caldwell College)|
|CE Instructor: Tina Sidener, Ph.D.|
This symposium will be comprised of data-based presentations that describe innovative research on maximizing effects of reinforcement and maintenance procedures. In the first study, the authors evaluated the effectiveness of Automatically Accessed Reinforcement Training (AART) with two males with autism. Findings indicated that the AART was effective both both participants, and was superior to Socially Mediated Reinforcement Training (SMRT) for one participant. The second study compared response patterns during FR token schedules and FR tandem schedules, as well as during FR token schedules and VR token schedules under ratio requirements common to clinical application. The third presentation is a data-based quantitative literature review of maintenance procedures in studies published in the Journal of Applied behavior Analysis from 2002 through 2011. Articles were coded for participant characteristics, setting characteristics, use of strategies to program for maintenance, the presence maintenance assessments, and the conditions under which maintenance data were collected. Results indicated that while certain techniques are common in the literature, few consistencies exist.
A Comparison of Reinforcement Delivery Methods to Teach Identity Matching
|SARAH DICKMAN (Marcus Autism Center), M. Alice Shillingsburg (Marcus Autism Center, Emory University School of Medicine), Cassondra M. Gayman (Marcus Autism Center), Sarah Wymer (Marcus Autism Center), Emily Napier (Marcus Autism Center)|
Only a handful of procedural variations have been suggested for individuals who fail to acquire matching-to-sample (MTS). In typical MTS procedures a preferred item is delivered by an instructor contingent upon a correct response (i.e., Socially Mediated Reinforcement Training; SMRT). Automatically Accessed Reinforcement Training (AART) is an alternative matching to sample procedure in which, an item is hidden beneath the correct comparison stimulus. Thus, a correct matching response directly produces access to the reinforcing item. Two males diagnosed with autism participated. The AART was evaluated with one participant who previously failed to acquire identity matching via SMRT. Both SMRT and AART were then compared with one additional participant. The results show that both participants acquired matching to sample via the AART. Results for the second participant suggest that the AART was superior for teaching matching to sample. These data suggest that the AART may be a useful alternative procedure for children lacking matching skills.
Response Patterns during Token Schedules of Reinforcement with Adolescents Diagnosed with Autism
|KATHRYN ROSE GLODOWSKI (The New England Center for Children), Jason C. Bourret (The New England Center for Children), Joshua Jackson (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Julie M. Stine (The New England Center for Children), Jonathan Seaver (The New England Center for Children)|
Token schedules of reinforcement are ubiquitous in clinical settings, yet little research has thoroughly evaluated the effects of clinically common token schedule values on responding. Basic research has shown that FR chained schedules produce lower response rates and longer pre-ratio pauses than FR tandem schedules. Basic research has also shown FR token schedules produce overall lower response rates and longer pre-ratio pauses than VR token schedules. These findings, however, have been most apparent at relatively high ratio requirements. The purpose of the current study is to compare response patterns during FR token schedules and FR tandem schedules, as well as during FR token schedules and VR token schedules under ratio requirements common to clinical application.
|Enhancing and Assessing Maintenance of Treatment Effects in Behavioral Interventions:
A Review of the Literature|
|ERIN RICHARD WHITE (Alpine Learning Group), Tina Sidener (Caldwell College), Kenneth F. Reeve (Caldwell College), Bridget A. Taylor (Alpine Learning Group), Jason C. Vladescu (Caldwell College)|
|Abstract: In their seminal article defining applied behavior analysis, Baer, Wolf, and Risley (1968) outlined maintenance of behavior as a change as one of the core dimensions of the field of applied behavior analysis (ABA). Maintenance is of particular importance to practitioners of ABA because procedures employed by behavior analysts often involve the use of systematic prompting procedures, contrived contingencies, such as token reinforcement systems, and other cues or stimuli that may not be readily available in the client’s every day environment. While maintenance of skills is at the core of behavior analysis, little is known about the types of procedures that maintain behavior and how the maintenance assessments themselves influence behavioral maintenance. To determine how researchers incorporate various techniques to enhance and/or assess maintenance into their studies, we conducted a quantitative literature review of research studies published in the Journal of Applied behavior Analysis from 2002 through 2011. Results indicated that while certain techniques are common in the literature, few consistencies exist.|