Caregiver Quick Reference Guide ( Please use the grading rubric attach)

Unit46Assignmentsforreference.docx

Home >Psychology homework help >Caregiver Quick Reference Guide ( Please use the grading rubric attach)

Running head:LITERATURE REVIEW PROPERTY DESTRUCTION

Please use this to complete unit 9 assignment

Unit 4

Case Study Description

The client I selected for this assignment is a client I worked with in the past named Caleb Johnson. Caleb is an 8-year- old boy diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Caleb lives with his mother, father, grandparents, and two younger sisters. Caleb is verbal but lacks social skills. Caleb often engages in noncompliance, Tantrums, Verbal Protest, and Property destruction. These behaviors tend to happen at school and home when Caleb is denied access or when a demand is placed. Caleb finds changes in routine upsetting and does not know how to accept no/alternatives. Caleb is making progress with taking turns with his pairs. Caleb's behavior at home is more intensive since his grandparents are his primary caretakers while mom/ dad are at work. Based on the interview questions that were collected from his family members this behavior tends to happen when he is denied access.

Measurement

Data is one of the most important factors of ABA without data, ABA is non existence every decision that is made is based on the data that is collected. "Measurement is the process of applying quantitative (Numbers) labels to observed properties of events using a standard set of rules'' (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007).

Caleb Property destruction behavior measurement will be taken by using permanent product and frequency. Permanent product is defined as the effects that the behavior produced on the environment. Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time. The RBT will record data behavior constantly.Property destruction is defined as damaging personal or public property, breaking an object into two or more pieces, using an object to break other objects, throwing objects, ripping objects from walls, floors, or furniture. Due to the intensity of Caleb's behaviors, the school has granted access to allow an RBT to come in between the hours of 8-1 since that is when his actions occur the most.

The targeted behavior observation period will be during class time to get a full observation and collect accurate data during structured activities (Miltenberger, 2016). For the first session, the BCBA will be present to collect ABC data. The therapist will be using a clicker to collect every instant that Caleb engages in property destruction; the therapist using a clicker will be more comfortable and quicker than accessing paper and or the online data in the heat of the moment. The therapist will also use a timer to measure how long the property destruction episode lasts every instant. The therapist will then transfer it to Central reach at the end of the day, which is the database that is used to store data.

Unit 6

Theoretical Underpinnings

Noel, C. R., & Getch, Y. Q. (2016). Noncontingent Reinforcement in After-School Settings to Decrease Classroom Disruptive Behavior for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Behavior analysis in practice, 9(3), 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0117-0

This research article focused on using NCR ( Noncontingent reinforcement) to decrease disruptive behaviors. The study focused on two individuals with ASD who engages in negative talk and property destruction which limited them from being able to interact with their peers and teachers. The author chose to use NCR as an intervention due to it being a simple procedure that can be implemented while the function of the behavior is still being determined. The authors stated that caregivers who don't have much training can implement NCR. The study took place at a university sponsored after school programs. The programs included plan activities. To collect data the authors used events based to measure the behavior and the NCR. an ABAB design was used to analyze the effectiveness of NCR on the problem behaviors ( Negative talk and Property destruction). The results demonstrated that when NCR was implemented the behavior occurred at a low frequency to some instances of it being at 0, this indicated that c Being that this procedure is something simple and doesn’t require much effort it is great to use in a classroom setting. NCR procedure can be used for Caleb when he is engaging in property destruction due to attention, when his one-on-one therapist may not be around. Caleb teacher will be able to implement this procedure without it requiring much work and she will be able to tend to the other students. NCR can also be implemented by Caleb grandparents since this procedure is easy to understand.

Falcomata, T. S., White, P., Muething, C. S., & Fragale, C. (2012). A functional communication training and chained schedule procedure to treat challenging behavior with multiple functions. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 24(6), 529-538. doi: http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1007/s10882-012-9287-z

The aim of this study was to evaluate functional communication training (FCT) and a chained schedule of reinforcement to treat challenging behaviors that served multiple functions. In the article the author used an ABAB reversal designed. The result of this study demonstrated that the combination of FCT and Chained schedule procedure was effective in decreasing negative behavior. One aspect of this study that stood out was the use of a chained schedule to signal the mands that will be reinforced when it came to accessing a highly preferred item/ activity. The client was taught to use their words to get access. And when words were used the child was reinforced. During the baseline phase the client was given access to a preferred item paired with attention for 1 min. To begin the session the therapist informed the client that it was time to work. During FCT and Chained schedule intervention a wristband was used to signal Danny how much time he will receive with reinforcement. The weakness to this study was the limitation of only one participant and one setting. Some components of this study can be implemented for Caleb especially the FCT aspect can be used to teach Caleb how to request for breaks, help, and access to reinforcers. Chained scheduled wouldn’t be effective in a classroom schedule being that the teacher will not have time to follow through with the chained schedule. The therapist that will be seeing Caleb in school will need intensive training to be able to understand the function of behaviors, and compliance training.

Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R., Smith, R. G., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1993). The role of attention in the treatment of attention-maintained self-injurious behavior: noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement of other behavior. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 26(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-9

This research analyzed the use of NCR and DRO for attention maintained behaviors. DRO was implemented at any instant that the target behavior was absent. The study used three female adults in a day program . NCR was implemented by delivering attention at a fixed time schedule. The main purpose of this study was to compare DRO and NCR. The result of this study shows that DRO and NCR are effective procedures to decrease behavior. NCR is easy to implement as long as a timer is available. NCR/DRO can be used for Caleb for positive reinforcement for attention maintained behavior. To implement DRO a list of expected behaviors can be placed on Caleb's desk and when he engages in those behaviors versus property destruction he will receive a token on an NCR schedule of every 3 minute.

Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 18(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1985.18-111

This study examined the use of Functional Communication Training to reduce problem behaviors. Behavior problems can be reduced if the child is taught to communicate functionally.

Functional communication can be used to decrease property destruction for all 3 function of Caleb behavior. By teaching Caleb to request for break, reinforcers, help from therapists, and be able to express his frustration which in return limit the amount of time he engages in property destruction for that function.

Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hanley, G. P., Remick, M. L., Contrucci, S. A., & Aitken, T. L. (1997). The use of positive and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape-maintained destructive behavior. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 30(2), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-279

This research article examined positive and negative reinforcement for escaping, access and attention. 3 individuals participated in the study with destructive behavior that was maintained by multiple functions. Escape extinction was implemented when escape was being used as reinforcement. Positive reinforcement can be classified as an antecedent measure.

Ward, S., Parker, A., & Perdikaris, A. (2016). Task as Reinforcer: a Reactive Alternative to Traditional Forms of Escape Extinction. Behavior analysis in practice, 10(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0139-7

The research article focused on escape extinction and the effect it has on negative behavior such as property destruction. This study also examined the negative effects that escape extinction can produce and alternatives that can be used. The study consists of 3 students at an autism clinic. No baseline data was available. Wait out was effective Type 1 punishment:

Waters, M. B., Lerman, D. C., & Hovanetz, A. N. (2009). Separate and combined effects of visual schedules and extinction plus differential reinforcement on problem behavior occasioned by transitions. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 42(2), 309–313. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-309

This study evaluated the visual schedules and extinction plus differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) with two participants. This study demonstrated that visual schedule when used alone was not effective but when extinction and DRO were used the behavior decreased when transitioning from a preferred activity to a non-preferred activity. Giving the child warnings by using a timer and a visual schedule to allow the child to know what activity is next and when they will have access to the next activity. The result of the study indicated that visual schedule while it may be used commonly in the classroom is not effective without extinction.

Reference

Day, H. M., Horner, R. H., & O'Neill, R. E. (1994). Multiple functions of problem behaviors: assessment and intervention. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 27(2), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-279