The Treatment of Covert Self‐injury Through Contingencies on Response Products

Grace, Nancy C.; Thompson, Rachel H.; Fisher, Wayne W.

doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-239

Cited by 36 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Other Procedures For Objectively Evaluating Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hanley

2010

Behav Analysis Practice

176

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The adoption of effective behavioral interventions and teaching strategies for young children is largely influenced by the extent to which stakeholders find the procedures appropriate and the effects important. Stakeholder values have been described by measures of social validity in applied behavior analysis, and these measures have been a part of behavior-analytic research and practice since their important characteristics were described in the late 1970s. The typically subjective nature of the social validation process appears, however, to have marginalized children and other usual recipients of behavior-change procedures (i.e., individuals with autism or intellectual disabilities) from social validation processes. Therefore, the importance of including recipients of behavior-change procedures in the social validation process and methods for doing so are described in this paper. Keywords: Autism, choice, concurrent chains, intellectual disability, preference, recipient inclusion, social validity ABSTRACT T

show abstract

Section: Other Procedures For Objectively Evaluating Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hanley

2010

Behav Analysis Practice

176

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Grace, Thompson, and Fisher (1996) applied a differential reinforcement schedule to reduce the covert self-injurious behavior (SIB) of one participant. Reinforcers were delivered contingent on absence of permanent products (e.g.…”

Section: Evaluation and Treatment Of Covert Hand Flappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation and treatment of covert stereotypy

Ringdahl

Andelman

Kitsukawa

et al. 2002

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The treatment of behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement (e.g. stereotypy) can present a unique challenge if practitioners cannot control delivery of the maintaining reinforcer. Further, some individuals might engage in stereotypy only when care providers are absent. In the current evaluation, an adolescent boy's hand¯apping was demonstrated to occur in the absence of social contingencies and care providers. To reduce the behavior, two treatment strategies were assessed. In the ®rst approach, verbal reminders to refrain from hand¯apping were delivered on time-based schedules. In the second approach (differential reinforcement of other behavior, DRO), we provided access to a preferred item contingent on prespeci®ed time lengths with no hand¯apping when the participant was alone in a room. Results of the investigation indicated that the verbal reminders were unsuccessful, whereas the DRO program resulted in near-zero levels of stereotypy. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. EVALUATION AND TREATMENT OF COVERT HAND FLAPPINGAlthough the treatment of many forms of severe problem behavior has bene®ted from functional analysis methodology (cf. Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982/1994, the treatment of stereotypic and other behaviors that are maintained by automatic reinforcement continues to be problematic. As Vollmer (1994) described, because the automatic reinforcers maintaining problem behavior are not under the therapist's control, successful treatment of behavior is dif®cult. In many instances, treatment is more complicated because the behavior is most likely to occur when care providers are not present (i.e. the behavior is covert).To date, few studies have described the treatment of covert problem behavior. Grace, Thompson, and Fisher (1996) applied a differential reinforcement schedule to reduce the covert self-injurious behavior (SIB) of one participant. Reinforcers were delivered contingent on absence of permanent products (e.g. tissue damage) of the

show abstract

“…Such forms of data collection have been used in the assessment and treatment of self-injury (Grace, Thompson, & Fisher, 1996;Iwata, Pace, Kissel, Nau, & Farber, 1990) and stereotypy (Crossland, Zarcone, Schroeder, Zarcone, & Fowler, 2005). This form of data collection may be automated through interactions with a mechanical or electrical device, or from the tangible outcomes produced by a target response (Kahng, Invargsson, Quigg, Seckinger, & Teichman, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%