Treatment Of Destructive Behavior Research Articles

Evaluating Preference for Functional and Nonfunctional Stimuli in the Treatment of Destructive Behavior.

The effects of including nonfunctional stimuli that may appear in the natural environment during treatment remain unclear. The current study evaluated preference for differential reinforcement of communication (DRC) treatments with functional reinforcers only and a combination of functional and nonfunctional stimuli. Both treatment conditions resulted in a decrease in destructive behavior and an increase in the communication response for all participants. Two participants preferred the combined DRC condition, whereas one participant showed equal preference for the combined condition and one of the functional conditions.

Translating quantitative theories of behavior into improved clinical treatments for problem behavior

The most important advancement in the treatment of destructive behavior has been the development of the functional analysis, which is used to prescribe effective treatments like functional communication training. Although this approach can be highly effective, extinction bursts and forms of treatment relapse commonly occur when function-based treatments are implemented by caregivers in natural community settings. In recent years, researchers have increasingly applied quantitative theories of behavior like behavioral momentum theory (BMT) and the temporally weighted matching law (TWML) to understand, prevent, or mitigate extinction bursts and treatment relapse. In this paper, we describe BMT and TWML and selectively review the basic, translational, and applied research supporting and opposing each theory. Then, we describe how function-based treatments may be refined based on these theories to improve the effectiveness, generality, and durability of function-based treatments for individuals with autism spectrum and related disorders who display problem behavior.

Baseline reinforcement rate and resurgence of destructive behavior.

Concepts from behavioral momentum theory, along with some empirical findings, suggest that the rate of baseline reinforcement may contribute to the relapse of severe destructive behavior. With seven children who engaged in destructive behavior, we tested this hypothesis in the context of functional communication training by comparing the effects of different baseline reinforcement rates on resurgence during a treatment challenge (i.e., extinction). We observed convincing resurgence of destructive behavior in four of seven participants, and we observed more resurgence in the condition associated with high-rate baseline reinforcement (i.e., variable-interval 2 s in Experiment 1 or fixed-ratio 1 in Experiment 2) compared to a low-rate baseline reinforcement condition. We discuss the implications of these results relative to schedules of reinforcement in the treatment of destructive behavior and strategies to mitigate resurgence in clinical settings.

ON THE APPLIED USE OF PROGRESSIVE‐RATIO SCHEDULES OF REINFORCEMENT

Examination of responding under various schedule arrangements is a core component of many analyses of operant behavior. Much of the pioneering work in applied behavior analysis was bred from laboratory research involving the exposure of nonhuman subjects to a variety of schedule arrangements. For example, Reynolds (1961) described a multiple-schedule arrangement in which one component consisted of reinforcement for not responding for a specific period of time (i.e., differential reinforcement of other behavior [DRO]). Exposure to the DRO schedule resulted in generally low rates of responding. Since the initial publication of the basic DRO schedule arrangement, DRO procedures have been frequently employed in the treatment of destructive behavior (e.g., Cowdery, Iwata, & Pace, 1990; Mazaleski, Iwata, Vollmer, Zarcone, & Smith, 1993). Hodos (1961) described a schedule arrangement in which the requirement to access reinforcement increased on a trial-by-trial basis within the course of a single session. That is, the subject would initially emit a predetermined number of responses before reinforcement delivery (e.g., 20 responses). Following reinforcer delivery, the subsequent response requirement would increase by some increment (e.g., another 10 responses; referred to as a step size) such that in the next trial the subject would be required to complete more responses than in previous trials (e.g., 30 responses before reinforcer delivery, 40 responses before reinforcer delivery). Within-session changes in response requirements in this pattern constitute a progressive-ratio (PR) schedule of reinforcement. (It should be noted that increasing response requirements over successive sessions, e.g., DeLeon, Iwata, Goh, & Worsdell, 1997; Tustin, 1994; has been conceptualized as a form of PR schedule arrangement by some, e.g., Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007. For the purpose of the current discussion, PR schedules will be conceptualized as those schedules that increase during the course of a single session.) The primary clinical application of PR schedules involves assessment and quantification of differential reinforcer efficacy, which has sometimes been referred to as reinforcer potency (i.e., the ability of a reinforcer to maintain behavior; Baron, Mikorski, & Schlund, 1992; Hodos & Kalman, 1963; Johnson & Bickel, 2006). The assessment of reinforcer potency using PR schedules is commonly achieved through a comparison of relative break points (also referred to as breaking points). A break point is usually characterized as the last reinforced PR requirement that is completed. To illustrate, suppose a PR schedule were arranged with a step size of five responses. If a participant completed five trials and emitted 25 responses during the last trial before responding ceased with Stimulus A and completed eight trials and emitted 40 responses during the last trial with Stimulus B before responding ceased, one would conclude that Stimulus B was a more potent reinforcer than Stimulus A because Stimulus B had a higher break point. That is, Stimulus B supported more responding as the schedule requirements increased. In addition to the use of break points as a measure of reinforcer efficacy, PR schedules are also characterized by the omission of a terminal schedule value. That is, PR schedule requirements typically increase throughout the course of a session until responding stops for a period of time (e.g., 5 min) or until a predetermined duration of the observation has been reached (a session cap). Thus, total response output (as opposed to response rate) and break-point values are the primary measures of interest when evaluating behavior with PR schedules.

Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities: fad, fashion, and science in professional practice

Contents: Preface. Introduction. Part I: General Issues. S. Vyse, Where Do Fads Come From? J.E. Favell, Sifting Sound Practice From Snake Oil. C. Newsom, C.A. Hovanitz, The Nature and Value of Empirically Validated Interventions. T. Smith, The Appeal of Unvalidated Interventions. Part II: Historical, Cultural, and Psychological Influences. J.W. Jacobson, J.A. Mulick, R.M. Foxx, Historical Approaches to Developmental Disabilities. S. Vig, Classification Versus Labelling. R.M. Foxx, C.E. Roland, The Self-Esteem Fallacy. D.R. Mock, J.M. Kauffman, The Delusion of Full Inclusion. S. Greenspan, Credulity and Gullibility in Service Providers. J.W. Jacobson, J.A. Mulick, Developmental Disabilities and the Paranormal. Part III: Field-Specific Issues. M.A. Kozloff, Fads in [General?] Education [in General?]. T. Zane, Fads in Special Education: An Overview. W.L. Heward, S.M. Silvestri, Fads in Special Education: Toward More Effective Practice. M. Koenig, C. Gunter, Fads in Speech-Language Pathology. Part IV: Disorder- and Symptom-Specific Issues. B. Metz, J.A. Mulick, E.M. Butter, Autism: A Late Twentieth Century Fad Magnet. S. Kay, S. Vyse, Helping Parents Separate the Wheat From the Chaff: Putting Autism Treatments to the Test. S. Holburn, Severe Aggressive [and Self-?] Destructive Behavior: Mentalistic Attribution. R.M. Foxx, Severe Aggressive [and Self-?] Destructive Behavior: The Myth of Nonaversive Treatment. Part V: Intervention-Specific Issues. J.G. Osborne, Person-Centered Planning. T. Smith, D.W. Mruzek, D. Mozingo, Sensory Integrative Therapy. O.C. Mudford, C. Cullen, Auditory Integration Training. J.W. Jacobson, R.M. Foxx, J.A. Mulick, Facilitated Communication. J.A. Mulick, E.M. Butter, Positive Behavior Support. C. Newsom, K.A. Kroeger, Nonaversive Treatment. C. Cullen, O.C. Mudford, Gentle Teaching. Part VI: Ethical and Legal Concerns. P. Sturmey, Ethical Dilemmas and the Most Effective Treatments. E. Tiryak, Judicial [Legal?] Remedies for Fad and Fraudulent Treatment Practices. J.M. Johnston, Afterword. R.M. Foxx, Appendix: The National Institute of Health Consensus Development Conference on the Treatment of Destructive Behaviors.

Assessing preferences for positive and negative reinforcement during treatment of destructive behavior with functional communication training

Results of prior studies (e.g. [J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 32 (1999) 285]) showing that participants chose alternative behavior (compliance) over escape-reinforced destructive behavior when this latter response produced escape and the former response produced positive reinforcement may have been due to (a) the value of the positive reinforcer overriding the value of the negative reinforcer or (b) the presence of the positive reinforcer altering the value of the negative reinforcer (i.e., lessening the aversiveness of the demands). In this investigation we evaluated the relative contributions of these alternative mechanisms with two girls with autism. We compared the relative effects of positive and negative reinforcement using equivalent communication responses under both a restricted-choice condition (in which participants could choose positive or negative reinforcement, but not both) and an unrestricted-choice condition (in which participants could choose one or both reinforcers). Both participants often chose positive over negative reinforcement in the restricted-choice condition. However, in the unrestricted-choice condition (in which participants could choose one or both reinforcers), one participant consistently chose both reinforcers by the end of the analysis whereas the other primarily chose only positive reinforcement. Results suggested that for one participant the value of the positive reinforcer overrode the value of the negative reinforcer, whereas for the other participant, the presence of the positive reinforcer in the demand context lessened the aversiveness of the demands.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Destructive Behavior in Dogs

Destructive behavior in dogs can be expensive for owners and life-threatening for dogs. The human-companion animal bond is jeopardized. A diagnostic plan should address both behavioral and medical causes of destructive behavior. Once a diagnosis has been established, a successful therapeutic plan can be formulated. Treatment includes modification of both behavior and environment and may incorporate the judicious use of psychotropic medication.

Evaluation of pharmacologic treatment of destructive behaviors: Aggregated results from single-case experimental studies

In this investigation, 20 clients with mental retardation and destructive behavior disorders were treated with psychotropic medication based on symptoms associated with a psychiatric disorder. For each patient, single-case design and direct observation procedures were utilized to evaluate outcome. Three clients (15%) showed at least a 50% reduction in destructive behavior; seven (35%) experienced a 50% or greater increase in destructive behavior; 10 (50%) experienced no change in their destructive behavior. The best response was to stimulant medications prescribed on the basis of pervasive hyperactivity and distractibility. The worst response was to lithium prescribed on the basis of manic-like symptoms (e.g., psychomotor agitation) or cyclical behavior disturbance. The low response rate was hypothesized to be a function of the unique underlying brain dysfunction in severely to profoundly retarded individuals with destructive behavior disorders, and the difficulties with applying psychiatric diagnoses in the population. Given the individual variability of response among clients and the prevalence of behavior dysfunction of the population, single-case methodology may have a useful role in the assessment of psychopharmacotherapy with individuals with severe to profound mental retardation and destructive behavior disorders.

Who is treated using restrictive behavioral procedures? A population perspective

Considerable controversy surrounds the continued use of restrictive behavioral procedures in the treatment of destructive behaviors, such as self-injury, aggression, and property damage, displayed by some people with mental retardation. This study reports on the extent that pharmacological and behavioral consequences occur in response to these behaviors within a population of 31,000 people in one state's developmental services system. Data on these individuals are analyzed to determine the degree to which intellectual level, residential setting type, type and extent of problem behaviors, and age are related to the prescriptive use of pharmacologic and behavioral consequences. These variables appear to bear a significant relationship on the extent to which consequences are applied as part of treatment. Furthermore, although pharmacologic and several behavior consequences are applied at similar rates, it was found that generally timeout, as a specific treatment procedure, was applied at rates considerably less than those for psychoactive medication in each population subgroup that was examined.

Treatment of destructive behaviors in persons with developmental disabilities

Treatment of destructive behaviors in persons with developmental disabilities

An NIH Consensus Development Conference: Treatment of Destructive Behaviors in Persons with Developmental Disabilities

An NIH Consensus Development Conference: Treatment of Destructive Behaviors in Persons with Developmental Disabilities