A Preliminary Procedure for Predicting the Positive and Negative Effects of Reinforcement‐based Procedures

Abstract

In the current investigation, a modification was made to the preference assessment described by Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985) to predict the effects of stimuli when used in a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedule for 2 clients with severe self-injurious behavior (SIB) and profound mental retardation. Based on the results of the preference assessment, three types of stimuli were identified: (a) high-preference stimuli associated with high rates of SIB (HP/HS), (b) high-preference stimuli associated with relatively lower rates of SIB (HP/LS), and (c)low-preference stimuli associated with low rates of SIB (LP/LS). Consistent with the results of the preference assessment, the DRO schedule with HP/HS stimuli resulted in increased SIB, and the DRO schedule with LP/LS stimuli resulted in no change in SIB when used in a DRO schedule. Thus, the stimulus preference assessment may be useful clinically in some situations for predicting both the beneficial and the negative side effects of stimuli in DRO procedures.

Schedule Thinning Following Communication Training: Using Competing Stimuli to Enhance Tolerance to Decrements in Reinforcer Density

“…Although several studies have demonstrated that access to competing stimuli delivered on an NCR schedule can effectively decrease problem behavior (e.g., Piazza et al, 1996;Shore et al, 1997), no study has used competing stimuli (identified using an empirical CSA) to enhance FCT. Of the two published studies describing FCT interventions involving the provision of alternative stimuli during no-reinforcement periods for communication Fisher, Thompson, Hagopian, Bowman, & Krug, 2000), neither involved selecting those alternative stimuli based on the results of a CSA.…”

“…Procedures used to examine the degree to which access to various stimuli displace problem behavior, relative to a nostimulus control condition, have recently been termed competing stimulus assessments (DeLeon, Rodriguez-Catter, Fisher, Delia, & Marhefka, 2000;Fisher, DeLeon, Rodriguez-Catter, & Keeney, 2004;Long, Hagopian, DeLeon, Marhefka, & Resau, in press). Several studies have demonstrated that noncontingent access to competing stimuli can effectively reduce problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement (Piazza, Fisher, Hanley, Hilker, & Derby, 1996;Ringdahl, Vollmer, Marcus, & Roane, 1997;Roane, Vollmer, Ringdahl, & Marcus, 1998;Shore, Iwata, DeLeon, Kahng, & Smith, 1997;Zhou, Goff, & Iwata, 2000). It is presumed that stimuli that are associated with decreases in problem behavior produce reinforcement that competes with reinforcement that maintains problem behavior.…”

A Comparison of Noncontingent Reinforcement and Sensory Extinction as Treatments for Self‐injurious Behavior

“…It is important to note that the high degree of effectiveness observed for both NCR and EXT may have been a function of the assessment probes undertaken prior to conducting the treatment comparison (Piazza et al, 1996;Ringdahl et al, 1997). We conducted these probes in an attempt to ensure that the two treatment procedures, whose effects may have been heavily dependent on specific stimulus characteristics, would be roughly equated.…”

“…A second purpose of this study was to systematically identify stimuli associated with low levels of SIB for the EXT condition and stimuli associated with both low levels of SIB and high levels of object manipulation for use during the NCR condition, based on procedures similar to those described by Piazza, Fisher, Hanley, Hilker, and Derby (1996) and by Ringdahl, Vollmer, Marcus, and Roane (1997).…”

The Effects of Blocking Mouthing of Leisure Items on Their Effectiveness as Reinforcers

“…For instance, Piazza, Fisher, Hanley, Hilker, and Derby (1996) showed that rates of automatically reinforced self-injury (SIB) increased when preferred stimuli were delivered in differential reinforcement programs. The authors hypothesized that delivering such stimuli may set the occasion for SIB.…”