Moldeamiento

The Effects of Different Rates of Behavior-Specific Praise in Secondary Classrooms

“…In a systematic review, Floress, Beschta, Meyer, and Reinke (2017) examined the characteristics of praise described across 29 experimental studies conducted in school settings from 1981 to 2015, finding the use of verbal, contingent, and behavior-specific praise (BSP) as the most commonly described praise characteristics. The results and recommendations of other praise reviews and empirically supported practice guidelines similarly emphasize BSP over general praise, delivered verbally, publicly (i.e., audible to nonrecipient students), with credible sincerity, and immediately after and contingent upon desirable behaviors (Brophy, 1981; Cooper et al, 2020; Ennis et al, 2020; Simonsen et al, 2015). BSP includes a statement of approval and a clear description of the desired behavior (e.g., “Great job sitting quietly!”).…”

“…This study does not describe an effective thinning process, but data from Teachers 1 and 2 indicate that the transition from using BSP once per 2 min to once per 4 min was too large to maintain the improvements in AEB and DB obtained from using BSP once per 2 min. This may depict a ratio strain, which emerges when the ratio of reinforcement per occurrence of a target behavior becomes too large too quickly to maintain the effects of a smaller behavior reinforcement ratio (Cooper et al, 2020). Teachers seeking to thin their rate of BSP from once per 2 min should do so by a smaller margin.…”

“…Although treatment intensity can be defined along various dimensions of intervention delivery, including duration and frequency (for a review, see Codding & Lane, 2015), the study of treatment intensity requires a conceptually systematic quantification of a dimension that can show differentiated effects on student outcomes. Along the frequency dimension, the rate or schedule in which BSP is used is one quantification of treatment intensity and is an established parameter in the behavior analytic literature that influences reinforcer efficacy (Cooper et al, 2020). Conceptualizing the intensity of BSP as a rate is also consistent with how the measurement and implementation of BSP are described across the literature (Ennis et al, 2020; Jenkins et al, 2015).…”

“…Identifying an optimally efficient rate of BSP likely to produce acceptable levels of classwide behavior is an important area for research with practical implications (Moore et al, 2019). A rate of BSP too low may have little impact on classwide behavior; an overly dense rate may result in satiation, and BSP may lose its reinforcing efficacy (Cooper et al, 2020). Secondary teachers also identify having limited time as a barrier to intervention implementation and may have difficulty maintaining a high rate of BSP while managing other competing demands (Long et al, 2016).…”

Rethinking Rigor in Multiple Baseline and Multiple Probe Designs

“…Conditions (e.g., baseline and intervention) can be conducted completely separate from one another (i.e., sequentially) or with some sequential components (e.g., baseline conditions do not start simultaneously, but some sessions may overlap). Some texts (e.g., Cooper et al, 2020) refer to the second type of nonconcurrence as a “delayed” MB design; for simplicity, and because the internal validity concerns are similar, we refer to any designs without concurrent initiation of baseline conditions as nonconcurrent. We also note that although the original works regarding NCMB designs described the decision regarding the number of baseline sessions as occurring a priori, this definition has not always been used in contemporary research; a separate discussion of this issue follows the discussion about nonconcurrent designs.…”