Assessment of preference for behavioral treatment versus baseline conditions

Abstract

This study was designed to determine whether behavioral treatments would be preferred over no treatment (baseline) conditions. Functional analyses and descriptive observations were conducted to determine the variables that maintained each participant's problem behavior. Next, treatments were implemented based on assessment results. Finally, participants were provided a choice between baseline and treatment conditions to determine whether they preferred to participate in treatment. Baseline conditions were in place on one side of a room and treatment conditions were in place on the other side of the room. Assessment results suggested that problem behavior was automatically reinforced for one participant and multiply controlled for another participant. The treatment results showed that differential reinforcement and extinction (extinction was not implemented for automatically reinforced behavior) were effective in reducing problem behavior for each participant. Results of the choice between baseline and treatment phase showed that both participants chose treatment over baseline conditions.

Behavior Problems and Placement Change in a National Child Welfare Sample

“…Alternatively, previous research has linked worse outcomes with multiple placement changes (Dozier et al, 2007; Ryan and Testa 2005; Rubin et al, 2007; Zima et al, 2000), with the highest risks being associated with having had a high number of such moves (Newton et al, 2000; Thornberry et al 1999). For example, Thornberry and colleagues (1999) found greatly increased risk of delinquency for youth with more than four placement changes.…”

Toward Effective and Preferred Programming: A Case for the Objective Measurement of Social Validity with Recipients of Behavior-Change Programs

“…It is important to point out that concurrent-chains arrangements are but one way to objectively determine children's values for our behavioral programming (for alternative procedures, see Dozier et al, 2007;Grace, Thompson, & Fisher, 1996;Harding et al, 1999;Lancioni, O'Reilly, Campodonico, & Mantini, 1998;Peck, Wacker, Berg, & Cooper, 1996). Another means of objectively evaluating preferences is to simply observe where children or adults with autism allocate their time when multiple activities or contexts are concurrently available.…”

Conjugate reinforcement: a brief review and suggestions for applications to the assessment of automatically reinforced behavior

“…In a recent study, Dozier et al (2007) evaluated individuals' preferences for conditions of baseline versus conditions of function-based intervention. For example, after demonstrating that an individual's problem behavior was maintained by access to tangibles, treatment involving FCT was shown to decrease problem behavior.…”

“…Using a preparation similar to that described by Dozier et al (2007), to address the question about preference for control over reinforcement, two conditions could be implemented; one that allows the participant to engage in only a narrow or restricted dimension of body rocking (other dimensions are blocked) and another that allows the participant to engage in any dimension of body rocking. In the restricted condition, body rocking that extended beyond the individual's midline (based on the profile) would be physically blocked by a therapist, whereas body rocking that did not extend beyond the midline would be permitted.…”

“…In terms of intervention, behavior analysts would need to reconsider the manner in which alternative stimulation was provided to treat automatically reinforced behavior. As previously suggested, preference for noncontingent versus conjugately controlled auditory stimulation could also be evaluated using a conconcurrent operants design (Dozier et al, 2007).…”