Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 1996 Summer;29(2):137–152. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-137

A preliminary procedure for predicting the positive and negative effects of reinforcement-based procedures.

C C Piazza 1, W W Fisher 1, G P Hanley 1, K Hilker 1, K M Derby 1
PMCID: PMC1279890  PMID: 8682733

Abstract

In the current investigation, a modification was made to the preference assessment described by Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985) to predict the effects of stimuli when used in a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedule for 2 clients with severe self-injurious behavior (SIB) and profound mental retardation. Based on the results of the preference assessment, three types of stimuli were identified: (a) high-preference stimuli associated with high rates of SIB (HP/HS), (b) high-preference stimuli associated with relatively lower rates of SIB (HP/LS), and (c)low-preference stimuli associated with low rates of SIB (LP/LS). Consistent with the results of the preference assessment, the DRO schedule with HP/HS stimuli resulted in increased SIB, and the DRO schedule with LP/LS stimuli resulted in no change in SIB when used in a DRO schedule. Thus, the stimulus preference assessment may be useful clinically in some situations for predicting both the beneficial and the negative side effects of stimuli in DRO procedures.

Full text

PDF
137

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Balsam P. D., Bondy A. S. The negative side effects of reward. J Appl Behav Anal. 1983 Fall;16(3):283–296. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1983.16-283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Carr E. G., Durand V. M. Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Summer;18(2):111–126. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cavalier A. R., Ferretti R. P. Stereotyped behaviour, alternative behaviour and collateral effects: a comparison of four intervention procedures. J Ment Defic Res. 1980 Sep;24(3):219–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.1980.tb00075.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Corte H. E., Wolf M. M., Locke B. J. A comparison of procedures for eliminating self-injurious behavior of retarded adolescents. J Appl Behav Anal. 1971 Fall;4(3):201–213. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1971.4-201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cowdery G. E., Iwata B. A., Pace G. M. Effects and side effects of DRO as treatment for self-injurious behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1990 Winter;23(4):497–506. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dyer K. The competition of autistic stereotyped behavior with usual and specially assessed reinforcers. Res Dev Disabil. 1987;8(4):607–626. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(87)90056-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fisher W., Piazza C. C., Bowman L. G., Hagopian L. P., Owens J. C., Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1992 Summer;25(2):491–498. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Foxx R. M., Azrin N. H. The elimination of autistic self-stimulatory behavior by overcorrection. J Appl Behav Anal. 1973 Spring;6(1):1–14. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1973.6-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Green C. W., Reid D. H., Canipe V. S., Gardner S. M. A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps. J Appl Behav Anal. 1991 Fall;24(3):537–552. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Iwata B. A., Dorsey M. F., Slifer K. J., Bauman K. E., Richman G. S. Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Summer;27(2):197–209. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mason S. A., McGee G. G., Farmer-Dougan V., Risley T. R. A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. J Appl Behav Anal. 1989 Summer;22(2):171–179. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1989.22-171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Pace G. M., Ivancic M. T., Edwards G. L., Iwata B. A., Page T. J. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Fall;18(3):249–255. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. REYNOLDS G. S. Behavioral contrast. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jan;4:57–71. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Repp A. C., Deitz S. M. Reducing aggressive and self-injurious behavior of institutionalized retarded children through reinforcement of other behaviors. J Appl Behav Anal. 1974 Summer;7(2):313–325. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1974.7-313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Touchette P. E., MacDonald R. F., Langer S. N. A scatter plot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Winter;18(4):343–351. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Vollmer T. R., Marcus B. A., LeBlanc L. Treatment of self-injury and hand mouthing following inconclusive functional analyses. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Summer;27(2):331–344. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wacker D. P., Berg W. K., Wiggins B., Muldoon M., Cavanaugh J. Evaluation of reinforcer preferences for profoundly handicapped students. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Summer;18(2):173–178. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES