功能沟通训练中提示时间和命令偏好的评价

Terry S. Falcomata, J. Ringdahl, T. Christensen, Eric W. Boelter
{"title":"功能沟通训练中提示时间和命令偏好的评价","authors":"Terry S. Falcomata, J. Ringdahl, T. Christensen, Eric W. Boelter","doi":"10.1037/H0100690","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Functional Communication Training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) is currently one of the most commonly utilized treatments for challenging behavior in the behavioral literature (Tiger, Hanley, & Bruzek, 2008). FCT is typically implemented following the identification of the function(s) of challenging behavior via functional assessment. Following the functional assessment, the identified functional reinforcement is made contingent on an appropriate communicative response (mand) and withheld following occurrences of challenging behavior. FCT and various mechanisms that influence the treatment's effectiveness have been evaluated within many second-generation studies following the seminal study published by Carr & Durand (1985). These include reinforcement-based components such as the role of extinction (Fisher et al., 1993; Wacker, et al., 1990) and punishment (Wacker et al., 1990); and topography-based variables such as effort associated with various mands (Buckley & Newchok, 2005; Richman, Wacker, & Winborn, 2001), the relative novelty of mands in an individual's behavioral repertoire (Winborn, Wacker, Richman, Asmus, & Geier, 2002), preference for various available mands (Winborn-Kemmerer, Ringdahl, Wacker, & Kitsukawa, 2009), and the relative proficiency with which individuals use various mand topographies (Ringdahl et al., 2009). In addition, several second-generation studies have evaluated the role of various antecedent variables on the effectiveness of FCT (e.g., Fisher, Kuhn, & Thompson, 1998; Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Kuhn, 2004; Peyton, Lindauer, & Richman, 2005). For example, several studies have evaluated various prompt parameters including prompt type (Lerman et al.; Peyton et al.) and schedule of prompting (Johnson, McComas, Thompson, & Symons, 2004). Specifically, Johnson et al. provided preliminary evidence of the effect of prompt schedule on mands during FCT. In that study, the experimenters implemented FCT in which both aggression and mands were reinforced on concurrent FR1 schedules of reinforcement. Initially, mand prompts were delivered on a VT 75 s schedule and mands were exhibited at low rates (i.e., 0.3 responses per minute; RPM) while aggression was exhibited at comparatively higher rates (i.e., 1.1 RPM). When prompts for manding were delivered on a FT 10s schedule, the mean rate of mands increased to 1.2 RPM while the mean rate of aggression decreased to 0.1 RPM. Although Johnson et al.'s results suggested the important role that prompt schedules likely play in mand allocation during FCT, it was not a primary focus of the study and the effects of prompt schedules were not experimentally established. Other research has focused on the effect of concurrent schedules on responding (e.g., Worsdell, Iwata, Hanley, Thompson, & Kahng, 2000), expanding the understanding of the interaction between reinforcement schedules and appropriate communicative behavior. Concurrent schedules have also been used to demonstrate that response parameters, such as preference (e.g., Winborn-Kemmerer et al., 2009) and effort (Buckley & Newchok, 2005) among mand topographies, influences responding. For example, Buckley and Nowchok used concurrent schedules to demonstrate that a separate response-related variable, effort, can impact communicative responding during FCT. Thus, concurrent schedules may also be useful in evaluating the effects of other potentially influential dimensions such as antecedent-based parameters (e.g., prompt rate). There were two main purposes of the current study. First, we wanted to evaluate the effects of various prompt schedules on mand usage for the purpose of facilitating appropriate recruitment of reinforcement. Second, we wanted to evaluate preference for available mands across prompt schedules when identical concurrent schedules of reinforcement were in place for each mand (i.e., FR1/FR1/FR1). Method Participant and Setting Sara was a 34-year-old female diagnosed with autism and mild to moderate retardation. …","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"77-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Evaluation of Prompt Schedules and Mand Preference during Functional Communication Training\",\"authors\":\"Terry S. Falcomata, J. Ringdahl, T. Christensen, Eric W. Boelter\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/H0100690\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Functional Communication Training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) is currently one of the most commonly utilized treatments for challenging behavior in the behavioral literature (Tiger, Hanley, & Bruzek, 2008). FCT is typically implemented following the identification of the function(s) of challenging behavior via functional assessment. Following the functional assessment, the identified functional reinforcement is made contingent on an appropriate communicative response (mand) and withheld following occurrences of challenging behavior. FCT and various mechanisms that influence the treatment's effectiveness have been evaluated within many second-generation studies following the seminal study published by Carr & Durand (1985). These include reinforcement-based components such as the role of extinction (Fisher et al., 1993; Wacker, et al., 1990) and punishment (Wacker et al., 1990); and topography-based variables such as effort associated with various mands (Buckley & Newchok, 2005; Richman, Wacker, & Winborn, 2001), the relative novelty of mands in an individual's behavioral repertoire (Winborn, Wacker, Richman, Asmus, & Geier, 2002), preference for various available mands (Winborn-Kemmerer, Ringdahl, Wacker, & Kitsukawa, 2009), and the relative proficiency with which individuals use various mand topographies (Ringdahl et al., 2009). In addition, several second-generation studies have evaluated the role of various antecedent variables on the effectiveness of FCT (e.g., Fisher, Kuhn, & Thompson, 1998; Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Kuhn, 2004; Peyton, Lindauer, & Richman, 2005). For example, several studies have evaluated various prompt parameters including prompt type (Lerman et al.; Peyton et al.) and schedule of prompting (Johnson, McComas, Thompson, & Symons, 2004). Specifically, Johnson et al. provided preliminary evidence of the effect of prompt schedule on mands during FCT. In that study, the experimenters implemented FCT in which both aggression and mands were reinforced on concurrent FR1 schedules of reinforcement. Initially, mand prompts were delivered on a VT 75 s schedule and mands were exhibited at low rates (i.e., 0.3 responses per minute; RPM) while aggression was exhibited at comparatively higher rates (i.e., 1.1 RPM). When prompts for manding were delivered on a FT 10s schedule, the mean rate of mands increased to 1.2 RPM while the mean rate of aggression decreased to 0.1 RPM. Although Johnson et al.'s results suggested the important role that prompt schedules likely play in mand allocation during FCT, it was not a primary focus of the study and the effects of prompt schedules were not experimentally established. Other research has focused on the effect of concurrent schedules on responding (e.g., Worsdell, Iwata, Hanley, Thompson, & Kahng, 2000), expanding the understanding of the interaction between reinforcement schedules and appropriate communicative behavior. Concurrent schedules have also been used to demonstrate that response parameters, such as preference (e.g., Winborn-Kemmerer et al., 2009) and effort (Buckley & Newchok, 2005) among mand topographies, influences responding. For example, Buckley and Nowchok used concurrent schedules to demonstrate that a separate response-related variable, effort, can impact communicative responding during FCT. Thus, concurrent schedules may also be useful in evaluating the effects of other potentially influential dimensions such as antecedent-based parameters (e.g., prompt rate). There were two main purposes of the current study. First, we wanted to evaluate the effects of various prompt schedules on mand usage for the purpose of facilitating appropriate recruitment of reinforcement. Second, we wanted to evaluate preference for available mands across prompt schedules when identical concurrent schedules of reinforcement were in place for each mand (i.e., FR1/FR1/FR1). Method Participant and Setting Sara was a 34-year-old female diagnosed with autism and mild to moderate retardation. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":88717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The behavior analyst today\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"77-84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The behavior analyst today\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100690\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The behavior analyst today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100690","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

功能性沟通训练;Carr & Durand, 1985)是目前行为文献中最常用的挑战行为治疗方法之一(Tiger, Hanley, & Bruzek, 2008)。FCT通常是在通过功能评估识别挑战性行为的功能之后实施的。在功能评估之后,确定的功能强化取决于适当的沟通反应(mand),并在出现挑战性行为时保留。在Carr & Durand(1985)发表的开创性研究之后,许多第二代研究对FCT和影响治疗效果的各种机制进行了评估。这些包括基于强化的成分,如灭绝的作用(Fisher et al., 1993;Wacker et al., 1990)和惩罚(Wacker et al., 1990);以及基于地形的变量,如与各种需求相关的努力(Buckley & Newchok, 2005;Richman, Wacker, & Winborn, 2001),手势在个体行为技能中的相对新颖性(Winborn, Wacker, Richman, Asmus, & Geier, 2002),对各种可用手势的偏好(Winborn- kemmerer, Ringdahl, Wacker, & Kitsukawa, 2009),以及个体使用各种手势地形的相对熟练程度(Ringdahl等,2009)。此外,一些第二代研究已经评估了各种前因变量对FCT有效性的作用(例如,Fisher, Kuhn, & Thompson, 1998;leman, Vorndran, Addison, & Kuhn, 2004;Peyton, Lindauer, & Richman, 2005)。例如,一些研究评估了各种提示参数,包括提示类型(Lerman et al.;Peyton et al.)和提示时间表(Johnson, McComas, Thompson, & Symons, 2004)。具体地说,Johnson等人提供了FCT期间快速安排对需求影响的初步证据。在该研究中,实验者实施了在FR1并行强化时间表上同时强化攻击和命令的FCT。最初,命令提示是按照vt75s时间表交付的,命令的显示率很低(即每分钟0.3个响应;而攻击性表现在相对较高的比率(即1.1 RPM)。当命令提示以ft10的时间表交付时,命令的平均速率增加到1.2 RPM,而攻击的平均速率降低到0.1 RPM。尽管Johnson等人的研究结果表明,在FCT过程中,提示时间安排可能在需求分配中发挥重要作用,但这并不是该研究的主要重点,提示时间安排的影响也没有得到实验证实。其他研究则侧重于并发时间安排对反应的影响(如Worsdell, Iwata, Hanley, Thompson, & Kahng, 2000),扩大了对强化时间安排与适当交际行为之间相互作用的理解。并发时间表也被用来证明响应参数,如偏好(例如,Winborn-Kemmerer等人,2009年)和努力(Buckley & Newchok, 2005年)在地形和地形中影响响应。例如,Buckley和Nowchok使用并发时间表来证明一个单独的与响应相关的变量,努力,可以影响FCT中的交际响应。因此,并发进度表在评估其他可能有影响的维度,如基于前提的参数(例如,提示率)的影响时也可能有用。目前的研究有两个主要目的。首先,我们想评估各种快速时间表对命令使用的影响,以促进适当的增援招募。其次,我们想要评估当每个命令(即FR1/FR1/FR1)都有相同的并行强化时间表时,在提示时间表中对可用命令的偏好。研究对象和背景Sara是一名34岁的女性,被诊断为自闭症和轻至中度发育迟缓。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Evaluation of Prompt Schedules and Mand Preference during Functional Communication Training
Functional Communication Training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) is currently one of the most commonly utilized treatments for challenging behavior in the behavioral literature (Tiger, Hanley, & Bruzek, 2008). FCT is typically implemented following the identification of the function(s) of challenging behavior via functional assessment. Following the functional assessment, the identified functional reinforcement is made contingent on an appropriate communicative response (mand) and withheld following occurrences of challenging behavior. FCT and various mechanisms that influence the treatment's effectiveness have been evaluated within many second-generation studies following the seminal study published by Carr & Durand (1985). These include reinforcement-based components such as the role of extinction (Fisher et al., 1993; Wacker, et al., 1990) and punishment (Wacker et al., 1990); and topography-based variables such as effort associated with various mands (Buckley & Newchok, 2005; Richman, Wacker, & Winborn, 2001), the relative novelty of mands in an individual's behavioral repertoire (Winborn, Wacker, Richman, Asmus, & Geier, 2002), preference for various available mands (Winborn-Kemmerer, Ringdahl, Wacker, & Kitsukawa, 2009), and the relative proficiency with which individuals use various mand topographies (Ringdahl et al., 2009). In addition, several second-generation studies have evaluated the role of various antecedent variables on the effectiveness of FCT (e.g., Fisher, Kuhn, & Thompson, 1998; Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Kuhn, 2004; Peyton, Lindauer, & Richman, 2005). For example, several studies have evaluated various prompt parameters including prompt type (Lerman et al.; Peyton et al.) and schedule of prompting (Johnson, McComas, Thompson, & Symons, 2004). Specifically, Johnson et al. provided preliminary evidence of the effect of prompt schedule on mands during FCT. In that study, the experimenters implemented FCT in which both aggression and mands were reinforced on concurrent FR1 schedules of reinforcement. Initially, mand prompts were delivered on a VT 75 s schedule and mands were exhibited at low rates (i.e., 0.3 responses per minute; RPM) while aggression was exhibited at comparatively higher rates (i.e., 1.1 RPM). When prompts for manding were delivered on a FT 10s schedule, the mean rate of mands increased to 1.2 RPM while the mean rate of aggression decreased to 0.1 RPM. Although Johnson et al.'s results suggested the important role that prompt schedules likely play in mand allocation during FCT, it was not a primary focus of the study and the effects of prompt schedules were not experimentally established. Other research has focused on the effect of concurrent schedules on responding (e.g., Worsdell, Iwata, Hanley, Thompson, & Kahng, 2000), expanding the understanding of the interaction between reinforcement schedules and appropriate communicative behavior. Concurrent schedules have also been used to demonstrate that response parameters, such as preference (e.g., Winborn-Kemmerer et al., 2009) and effort (Buckley & Newchok, 2005) among mand topographies, influences responding. For example, Buckley and Nowchok used concurrent schedules to demonstrate that a separate response-related variable, effort, can impact communicative responding during FCT. Thus, concurrent schedules may also be useful in evaluating the effects of other potentially influential dimensions such as antecedent-based parameters (e.g., prompt rate). There were two main purposes of the current study. First, we wanted to evaluate the effects of various prompt schedules on mand usage for the purpose of facilitating appropriate recruitment of reinforcement. Second, we wanted to evaluate preference for available mands across prompt schedules when identical concurrent schedules of reinforcement were in place for each mand (i.e., FR1/FR1/FR1). Method Participant and Setting Sara was a 34-year-old female diagnosed with autism and mild to moderate retardation. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信