Evaluation of Competing Stimuli within a DRO Contingency

Roane, Henry S.; Fisher, Wayne W.; Sgro, Gina M.; McDonough, Erin

doi:10.1080/15021149.2002.11434202

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most terminological variations occurred in the excluded studies. With only one exception (Roane, Fisher et al, 2002), all of the included studies that were published after Fisher et al (2004) used the term "Competing Stimulus Assessment." Although very few of the excluded studies used the term CSA, many used terms that were similar (e.g., "competing items assessment," "competing sensory analysis," "freeoperant competing stimulus assessment").…”

Section: Article Search and Filtermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Competing stimulus assessments: A systematic review

Haddock

Hagopian

2020

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current review summarizes the literature on competing stimulus assessments (CSAs). CSAs are pretreatment assessments designed to systematically identify stimuli that reduce problem behavior (PB), ostensibly through reinforcer competition or substitution. We report on the participant characteristics, outcomes, and predictive validity of published CSAs that included (a) no-stimulus control trial(s), (b) test trials during which each stimulus was available singly and noncontingently, and (c) measurement of PB and stimulus engagement or contact. Results showed that CSAs have broad utility across a variety of topographies and functions of PB. In the majority of CSA applications for which extended analyses, or validations, were performed, stimuli shown to reduce PB during the CSA produced similar reductions during extended analysis. This was the case regardless of topography or function of PB, or whether the stimuli were assumed to be "matched" to the stimulation thought to be produced by PB. Implications for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Article Search and Filtermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Auto = automatic reinforcement; Agg = aggression; Dis = disruption; SIB = self-injurious behavior; Attn = attention; Tang = tangible; Esc = escape. aDeLeon, Toole, et al (2005) bDeleon, Uy, & Gutshall (2005) cRoane, Fisher et al (2002) dRoane, Piazza et al (2002)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Competing stimulus assessments: A systematic review

Haddock

Hagopian

2020

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, all participants completed tasks more efficiently in the accumulated reinforcement delivery condition. Alternatively, delivering reinforcers in a distributed arrangement may be functionally similar to delivering competing stimuli (Haddock & Hagopian, 2020; Langthorne et al, 2014; Roane et al, 2002). Future researchers should identify the degree to which reinforcer delivery arrangement impacts participant outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral interventions addressing needle-based medical procedures in individuals diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A scoping review.

Walker¹,

White²,

Zangrillo³

et al. 2022

Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current strategies to ensure compliance with needle-based medical procedures in populations with intellectual or developmental disabilities can have negative side effects, which include the use of restrictive practices, especially when patients exhibit challenging behavior. Using behavioral strategies may be a safer and effective alternative to traditional approaches. In the current study we sought to provide a scoping review of the research on the use of behavioral strategies to increase compliance with needle-based medical procedures. We analyzed research efficacy at both the study level and individual level to determine the impact of behavioral strategies on (a) compliance with needle-based medical procedures and (b) reduction of challenging behavior. Only one of nine studies met What Works Clearinghouse standards for single-case research design. Most studies were able to produce compliance with actual needle-based medical procedures either during the studies or during follow-up phases. Those studies that measured challenging behavior produced large reductions in challenging behavior throughout their interventions. Most studies used differential reinforcement techniques without extinction. Although study quality was generally limited, studies produced robust effects in all participants. Most studies involved multicomponent treatment packages that make it difficult to determine the effects of individual treatment components. Initial research in the application of behavioral strategies to needle-based medical procedures are compelling, but much more research is needed before recommending specific strategies for practitioners.

show abstract

Evaluation of Competing Stimuli within a DRO Contingency

Cited by 2 publications

References 7 publications

Competing stimulus assessments: A systematic review

Competing stimulus assessments: A systematic review

Behavioral interventions addressing needle-based medical procedures in individuals diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A scoping review.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About