2 paragraphs
Read Scalzo & Davis (2016).
Use this article AND another, unassigned article from a peer reviewed journal within the past 10 years as the basis for your argument.
300 words for each response paragraph.
Motivating operation (MO) interventions that decrease challenging behavior often rely on manipulating states of satiation. As such, satiation, or providing a client presession access to a reinforcer is often used to both reduce challenging behavior and increase adaptive, on-task behavior (Scalzo et al., 2016). As a future BCBA, it is essential to understand this powerful intervention strategy while keeping in mind the importance of preserving the momentary effectiveness of the reinforcer being used. The research discussed highlighted the use of manipulating a tangible reinforcer. This distinction is important and opens the question if non-tangible reinforcers could be used as well.
O’Reilly et al., (2009) identified that behavioral indicators could be used as a measure of satiation. To further the understanding of this notion, Scalzo et al., (2016) conducted a systematic review of literature and reported the importance of observing behavioral indicators to indicate satiation. It was identified that having a way to measure satiation aligned more with the dimensions of ABA and is overall effective. In a similar fashion, Kahng et al., (2000) evaluated a method for determining whether response suppression under noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is a function of satiation or extinction. This research is important because as a clinician understanding that identification of satiation effects under dense NCR schedules could alter the proposed treatment plan.
References
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed. Merrill Publishing Company. ISBN – 0-13-142113-1
Kahng, S., Iwata, B. A., Thompson, R. H., & Hanley, G. P. (2000). A method for identifying satiation versus extinction effects under noncontingent reinforcement schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(4), 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-419
O’Reilly, M., Aguilar, J., Fragale, C., Lang, R., Edrisinha, C Singafoos, J., & Didden, R. (2009). A systematic examination of different parameters of presession exposure to tangible stimuli that maintain problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 773-783 https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-773
Scalzo, R., & Davis, T. N. (2016). Behavioral indicators of satiation: A systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 28(6), 919-930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-016-9506-0
335 words
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Scalzo and Davis' (2016) literature review on the current studies surrounding motivating operations and the usage of behavioral indicators as a measurement of satiation in relation to abolishing or establishing operations, they were able to synthesize 10 studies that aided in the growing field of discovering the effects of manipulation of motivating operations. However, due to such a small number of studies that were included, they do denote that only limited generalizations can be formed. However, in light of that, there leaves plenty of room for future research to build upon the implications of behavior implications as a means of identifying satiation.
Rispoli et al. (2015) take this research further, and in their study, they look more into the duration of presession access to preferred items, and the effect that this premeditated access has on the occurrence and magnitude of challenging behavior during learning sessions. Three children with autism (Sammy, Violet and Tom) who were known to engage in challenging behavior due to restricted access from preferred tangibles were participants in this study, and were exposed to one of two conditions: presession restriction, and pressession access. During the former, participants could not access preferred items for 1 hour prior to session beginning, while in the latter condition, clients were given free access to the preferred tangible until their personal specified rejection topography was exhibited. Their findings resulted in alignment with not only the satiation hypothesis (which states that preceding access to reinforcers can produce a state of satiation in regards to that stimulus), but habituation as well.
All three clients engaged in lower rates of challenging behavior and opposing high rates of responding during presession access conditions. They note that the cause of this change may be related to the motivating operation (MO) being manipulated for engagement in the challenging behavior; initial presession restriction may have functioned as an establishing operation (EO) for engaging in behaviors that would lead to the access to preferred tangibles, and conversely, unrestricted access until behavioral implications of satiation were observed could have served as abolishing operations (AO) to abating challenging behavior in order to obtain preferred tangibles.
Satiation in and of itself is one reason why, especially in the usage of everyday applied behavior analysis (ABA) techniques, reinforcement must be varied, so that satiation does not occur (Cooper et al., 2020). While this is a widely known and accepted practice, there are some instances in which clearly we as therapists and practitioners can use it to our advantage. In these instances, it may be preferable to allow learners some access to preferred items prior to session starting, and even within the bounds of a session duration, there can be intermittent breaks in learner access to preferred tangibles, attention, or what may be their own preferences. Again, the very nature of ABA therapy is idiosyncratic in nature, and client's personal preferences, ideals, behaviors and culture must be taken into account when developing treatment packages. That is to say, this may be a procedure that could easily be utilized in therapy sessions and other applied settings, but as stated by Rispoli et al. (2015) and Scalzo and Davis (2016), more research is needed on this topic and its effects on a greater scale to know of the difference that can be made with regards to larger and more diverse populations. References Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied Behavior Analysis. Pearson Education, Inc. Rispoli, M., O'Reilly, M., Lang, R., Machalicek, W., Kang, S., Davis, T., & Neely, L. (2015). An examination of within-session responding following access to reinforcing stimuli. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.10.013
Scalzo, R. & Davis, T. N. (2016). Behavioral indicators of satiation: A systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 28(6), 919-930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-016-9506-0