Negative+Reinforcement

Name SPED 843  Dr. Aronin  Spring 2011

 Negative Reinforcement __Description of Intervention Method __ media type="youtube" key="x3hcBHmi1lM?rel=0" height="390" width="480"

__Types of Students Who Benefit from the Method __ Negative Reinforcement can be effective most types of students. This method is effective with students who are already exhibiting the desired behavior.

__Qualifications for Using the Method__ Individuals should have a thorough understanding of what Negative Reinforcement is.

__Costs of Using the Method__ The use of Negative Reinforcement is generally associated with minimal cost.

__Potential Risks with Using the Method__ There is minimal risk to using Negative Reinforcement. There is a risk of artificially creating a negative stimuli in order to remove it when desired behavior occurs.

__Benefits of Using the Method__ When Negative Reinforcement is used, students are usually allowed to escape from something they do not want to do. This will generally leave the student feeling positive.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">__Settings for Method Use__ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Negative reinforcement can be used effectively within the classroom and school-wide.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">__Field’s Attitude Towards the Method__ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Negative Reinforcement is generally viewed as an acceptable behavioral management method.

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; text-align: center;">__Summary of Research Stud__y

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-bottom: 0in;">Lalli, J. S., Vollmer, T. R., Progar, P. R., Wright, C., Borrero, J., Daniel, D., Barthold, C. H., et al. (1999). Competition between positive and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape behavior. //Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis//, 32(3), 285.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Description of Subjects __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-bottom: 0in;">Five individuals who had been admitted to a hospital inpatient unit for the treatment of severe problem behavior participated. Dante was 9 years old and had been diagnosed with severe mental retardation, autism, and pervasive developmental disorder. He had been admitted for treatment of selfinjurious behavior (hand biting). Jay was a 3-year-old boy with a diagnosis of mild developmental delays who had been admitted for treatment of disruptive behavior. Roy was 21 years old and had been diagnosed with severe mental retardation. Tommy was a 10-year-old boy with a diagnosis of severe mental retardation who had been admitted for treatment of flopping. Mia was 18 years old, had been diagnosed with severe mental retardation, and had been admitted for treatment of disruptive behavior. All participants required some level of assistance with their self-care activities.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Description of Research Design __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-bottom: 0in;">Participants’ problem behaviors were initially assessed via functional analysis (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982/1994). A series of analogue conditions was presented during 10-min sessions in a multielement design, with an additional sequential analysis (control, escape) for Mia. Four to five sessions were usually conducted daily, 5 days per week, with a minimum of 5 min between sessions. The second phase of the study began with an evaluation of reinforcing compliance with 287 either an edible item (positive reinforcement) or a 30-s break from a task (negative reinforcement) with or without extinction for problem behavior. The effect of either positive or negative reinforcement (with or without extinction) on compliance and problem behavior was assessed using a series of reversal designs for all participants, except for Roy, whose treatment was evaluated in a multielement design. One to three 10-min sessions were conducted daily, 5 days per week. An NCE condition and an extinction-only condition were also conducted for Mia.Participants’ access to edible items used during the functional analysis and treatment evaluation was uncontrolled other than during sessions throughout the study.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Dependent Variable __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-bottom: 0in;">Dante’s self-injury consisted of //hand biting// (closure of the upper and lower teeth on the flesh of the wrist) and //body hitting// (forceful contact of an open or closed fist to the thigh). //Disruptive behavior// was defined as hitting or kicking the floor or walls (Mia) or throwing or breaking items (Jay, Mia). //Flopping// was defined as a participant dropping his body to the floor (Roy, Tommy). //Compliance with an instruction// was defined as a participant independently initiating the task within 5 s of either the first (verbal) or the second (gestural) prompt of a three-step prompt hierarchy.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Independent Variable __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-bottom: 0in;">Edible Reinforcer, Break Time

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Summary of Results __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-bottom: 0in;">Rates of problem behavior were lower and compliance was higher when compliance resulted in edible reinforcement than when compliance resulted in a break (SR-/SR- condition) for all participants.