Generating Randomized Schedules for Direct Observations in Microsoft[R] Office Excel[R]

Abstract

The active treatment ingredient in any operant-based behavior change procedure is the provision of some form of consequence made contingent upon a target response (see Skinner, 1953; 1957). Whether in the form of an edible, a praise statement, or the simple provision of data regarding one's performance, the science of operant behavior dictates that this consequential feedback will impact future instances of behavior in some capacity--either increasing or decreasing the likelihood that this behavior is emitted again in the future. Moreover, this notion is echoes that of Skinner's eloquently worded description in Science and Human Behavior (1953, pg. 59), that "The consequences of behavior may "feed back" into the organism. When they do so, they may change the probability that the behavior which produced them will occur again." Perhaps more importantly, the scheduling of such consequential feedback has proven to be paramount in the kinds of behavioral patterns subsequently observed (see Ferster & Skinner, 1957). Whether by design or act of nature, feedback schedules--similar to other consequential schedules, such as reinforcement or punishment--come as either interval- or ratio-based forms. Intervalbased schedules deliver feedback contingent upon the first occurrence of some target response after some pre-specified passage of time (e.g., a child reinforced for his/her first correct response after 5-min). However, ratio-based schedules dictate that the target response must occur a pre-specified number of times before it is provided feedback. (e.g., a child is reinforced after he/she emits five correct responses). As such, interval-based schedules typically produce lower response rates, relative to ratio-based schedules (see Ferster & Skinner, 1957). This is in part due to the fact that during ratio-based schedules, the responding organism is to some extent able to govern the rate of feedback through his/her own behavior since the feedback is directly contingent upon response rate. In addition, all feedback schedules, whether interval- or ratio-based, feature an additional requirement characteristic. Namely, as either being fixed (i.e., after a static number of required responses; e.g., a child is reinforced after every fifth correct response) or variable (i.e., after a dynamic number of required responses which averages to some specified value; e.g., on average, a child's behavior is reinforced for approximately every five correct responses) contingencies. Like interval- and ratio-schedules, fixed- and variable-schedules have specific behavioral patterns associated with their schedule type. Specifically, fixed-schedules tend to produce pauses in responding after the delivery of feedback, while variable-schedules tend to produce steady response rates despite instances of feedback delivery (see Ferster & Skinner, 1957). This phenomenon likely occurs because organisms may more accurately predict feedback delivery in fixed-schedules, but remain persistent in variable-schedules since the next feedback event cannot be predicted. Moreover, given these features, responding on fixed-schedules is often easier to extinguish than responding on variable-schedules (see Ferster & Skinner, 1957). While applied behavior analysts are typically well-versed in the programming of reinforcement schedules for their clients, they may not be aware of the kinds of feedback schedules imposed on their own behaviors concerning the active supervision and observations of other staff or clients on their caseload (cf. Reed, Fienup, Luiselli, & Pace, in press). Such schedule requirements may result from program/school policies and procedures, or be the result of competing priorities or responsibilities. Nevertheless, not taking a systematic approach to scheduling may be costly due to the phenomenon discussed above regarding schedule-induced behavioral patterns and the fact that the quality of supervision feedback to staff is crucial to maintaining adequate levels of staff performance in human service organizations (see Reid, 1998; Reid & Parsons, 2002). …