Treatment and extended follow-up of chronic hand mouthing

Lockwood, Kirk; Williams, David E.

doi:10.1016/0005-7916(94)90011-6

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hand mouthing (HM), the focus of the present studies, is an example of this type of behavior. Defined as placement of one or more fingers past the plane of the lips (Lockwood & Williams, ) or as contact between the hand and the mouth (Lerman & Iwata, ), HM that occurs infrequently may produce little or no trauma and typically is considered to be a form of stereotypy (Bodfish et al, ; LaGrow & Repp, ). Chronic HM, however, produces gradual skin breakdown and secondary infection (Ball, Campbell, & Barkemeyer, ; Lockwood & Williams, ; McClure, Moss, McPeters, & Kirkpatrick, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These data reflect a wide range of variation, and the prevalence of actual HM was not established in either study because the topographies of mouthing hands and mouthing objects were combined. Moreover, although injuries resulting from HM have been reported (Ball et al, ; Lockwood & Williams, ; McClure et al, ), the extent to which HM commonly produces trauma is unknown. Thus, one purpose of this study (Study 1) was to determine the prevalence of HM in a large client population and subsequently to determine the degree of injury associated with HM.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment and Treatment of Chronic Hand Mouthing

Roscoe

Iwata

Zhou³

2013

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hand mouthing (HM) is a chronic problem in many individuals with intellectual disabilities. Although the prevalence of mouthing has been estimated, data on the frequency, severity, or functions of the behavior were not included. In Study 1, we examined the prevalence and risk of HM. Results obtained from interviews showed that the prevalence of HM in two institutional samples (N = 802) was 12.7%, whereas direct observation yielded a lower estimate of prevalence (8%). Moreover, a large proportion of observed HM (39.1%) was self-injurious in nature. In Study 2, we used modified functional analyses (FAs) to examine the HM of 64 individuals. Results indicated that maintenance by automatic reinforcement accounted for 98.4% of the cases (all but one case). In Study 3, we implemented a progressive series of interventions for HM exhibited by 14 individuals. The following interventions were implemented in sequential order: (a) noncontingent reinforcement (NCR, effective with 6 subjects), (b) either NCR plus differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) plus response blocking (effective with 5 subjects) or NCR plus response blocking only (effective with 2 subjects), and (c) NCR plus brief manual restraint (effective with 1 subject).

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment and Treatment of Chronic Hand Mouthing

Roscoe

Iwata

Zhou³

2013

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implementing punishment procedures does not require a knowledge of a behavior's controlling variables. However, implementing such procedures may arise from a recognition that some behavior may be so powerfully automatically reinforced that it must be suppressed if other reinforcers in the person's environment are to be brought into effective use by the therapist (Lockwood & Williams, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%