Applied Behavior Analysis Results and Discussions Research
jlp2020
ResultsDiscussionActivity1.pptxResults & Discussion activity
Graphs
1
instructions
For each graph, you will be provided with a brief description of the study. Based on the graph provided, you will write a results paragraph which describes the results as you see them. Then, you will write a 2-3 paragraph discussion section explaining what the results mean and what implications there may be for the field of behavior analysis and society as a whole.
Graph #1
For this study, glass workers were shown a computerized training video on the importance of wearing protective gear (referred to as PPE on graph). Data were collected on the correct wearing of PPE before and after training.
4
Graph #2
For this study, stimulus-stimulus pairing was implemented to increase the rate of independent vocalizations in children with ASD. There were three different schedules in which the pairing trials were implemented (e.g., 5 s, 15 s, and 30 s). Data were collected on the rate of vocalizations targeted for each schedule.
6
Graph #3
For this study, different pictorial targets were taught using different types of attention as the reinforcer delivered to evaluate the reinforcer efficacy of each type of attention. The three attention conditions were praise, physical attention, and conversation. Data were collected on the cumulative number of targets mastered across baseline (no reinforcement) and attention-delivery (reinforcement).
8
Graph #4
For this study, the preference of different choice contexts (child-choice, experimenter-choice, and no-choice [control]) were evaluated. Data were collected on the frequency of selections for each choice context within a concurrent-operant arrangement (meaning they were all available) to show which context would be selected most often.
10
Graph #5
For this study, the rate of correct responding was evaluated across different tasks based on task preference. During baseline, one of three tasks was presented and the participant was able to work (or not work) as much as they wanted. During reinforcement, the only difference was an edible reinforcer was delivered for working on the task. The procedures in the second baseline phase were the same as the first. Data were collected on the rate of correct responses during each session, and the data paths depict the high-preferred (HP), moderate-preferred (MP), and low-preferred (LP) tasks.
12
Graph #6
For this study, the percent of compliance was measured during baseline and intervention based on the type of reinforcer delivered. The three reinforcers conditions were no SR+, attention, and tangibles. Data were collected on the percent of trials in which compliance occurred across reinforcer conditions.
14
Graph #7
For this study, the frequency of verbal disruptions was evaluated across baseline and treatment sessions. During treatment sessions, there was a criterion level set which was the maximum number of disruptions that could occur in order to still each the reinforcer at the end of the session. During baseline sessions, there was no set criterion and no reinforcers delivered. Data were collected on the frequency of disruptions across baseline and treatment phases.
16
Graph #8
For this study, the purpose was to decrease elopement. Participants were taught to return to their guardian or therapist if the “tag” they wore beeped. The beep signaled that they were too far from their guardian or therapist. The graph depicts the percentage of trials in which elopement occurred before and after training.
18
Graph #9
For this study, sight words were taught using different prompting procedures to evaluate the efficacy of each. Data were collected on the cumulative number of sight words mastered across phases and conditions.
20
Graph #10
For this study, functional communication training was used to decrease different problem behaviors (bullying and aggression) and increase appropriate responses. Participants were taught to engage in an appropriate responses (asking for the item) to access tangible reinforcers from their peers. The graph depicts the rate of each behavior before and after training.
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Baseline Post Training
Mac
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
P
P
E
W
o
r
n
A
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
Jimmy
24681012
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sessions
Miller
51015202530
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Post-Session Observations
R
a
t
e
o
f
V
o
c
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
15 s
30 s
5 s
Jill
5101520253035
2
4
6
8
10
Sessions
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
e
d
T
a
r
g
e
t
s
BaselineAttention-Delivery
Jacob
Conversation
Praise
Physical
12345678
5
10
15
Sessions
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
o
f
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Micky -
39 mo
Child-
choice
Experimenter-
choice
Control
Sessions
R
P
M
(
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
R
)
510152025303540
2
4
6
8
10
Baseline
Reinforcement
Edibles
Baseline
HP
MP
LP
Sally
2468101214161820222426283032
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sessions
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Alec
Attention
No S
R+
Tangible
Baseline
Intervention
246810121416182022242628
5
10
15
20
25
Sessions
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
o
f
V
e
r
b
a
l
D
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
s
BaselineBaselineBaselineTreatmentTreatmentTreatment
Frank
Criterion
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
John
Baseline Training
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
E
l
o
p
e
m
e
n
t
Lauren
123456789101112131415
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sessions
Michael
102030405060708090100110120
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Sessions
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
e
d
W
o
r
d
s
Craig
No
Intervention
Error
Correction
Error Correction vs.
Single Model
Single Model vs.
Single Feedback
Error Correction vs.
Antecedent Error Correction
Single
Feedback
Anetecednet
Error
Correction
Single
Model
Error
Correction
No
Intervention
Error
Correction
2468
1
2
3
R
a
t
e
o
f
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
(
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
)
Bullying
App.
Resp.
Aggression
Baseline
Functional Communication Training
2468
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
R
a
t
e
o
f
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
(
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
)
Hannah
Melody
