Reducing attention-maintained behavior through the use of positive punishment, differential reinforcement of low rates, and response marking

A Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Research on Applied Behavior Analytic Interventions for People With Down Syndrome

This systematic review evaluates single-case research design studies investigating applied behavior analytic (ABA) interventions for people with Down syndrome (DS). One hundred twenty-five studies examining the efficacy of ABA interventions on increasing skills and/or decreasing challenging behaviors met inclusion criteria. The What Works Clearinghouse standards and Risk of Bias in N-of-1 Trials scale were used to analyze methodological characteristics, and Tau-U effect sizes were calculated. Results suggest the use of ABA-based interventions are promising for behavior change in people with DS. Thirty-six high-quality studies were identified and demonstrated a medium overall effect. A range of outcomes was targeted, primarily involving communication and challenging behavior. These outcomes will guide future research on ABA interventions and DS.

A comparison of single-case evaluation tools applied to functional communication training with augmentative and alternative communication supports for students with developmental disabilities

BACKGROUND

Students with developmental disabilities frequently present with both limited vocal speech and challenging behavior. Functional communication training (FCT) with augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) supports, is a commonly recommended intervention to reduce challenging behavior for these students, while also increasing appropriate communication.

AIMS

Current research on this topic has not applied multiple evaluation tools, despite the recent suggestion to do so. Further, there are limited studies in the field of special education that have (a) applied multiple evaluation tools and (b) compared the results of the tools.

METHOD

In the current review, we applied three evaluation tools to intervention studies examining the use of FCT with AAC supports in school-based settings to determine the current level of scientific support for this intervention. We identified 38 studies, which contained 59 single-case designs (SCDs). Next, we compared the methodological rigor and/or quality, outcome scores, and Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) ratings provided by the three evaluation tools.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Our results yielded inconsistent methodological rigor and/or quality, participant outcome measures, and EBP classifications between the evaluation tools. No two evaluation tools completely aligned. Limitations and future research are discussed.

Reducing excessive questions in adults at adult-day training centers using differential-reinforcement-of-low rates

Differential-reinforcement-of-low rate (DRL) schedules are often used to reduce, not eliminate, behavior. We systematically replicated Austin and Bevan (2011) to determine whether the number of questions asked by two adults with intellectual disabilities working at adult-day-training centers could be reduced using a full-session DRL. The full-session DRL involved delivery of a reinforcer at the end of the day if the number of questions asked was less than a specified number during the entire session. Questions, up to a specified number, were also reinforced within-session. The full-session DRL reduced the number of questions asked by both participants and increased duration of task engagement for one participant.

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports in Schools: A Tutorial

Purpose

Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) provide a framework for behavioral expectations in school systems for children with and without disabilities. Speech-language pathologists who work in school settings should be familiar with this framework as part of their role in improving the outcomes for children. The purpose of this tutorial is to discuss PBIS and its use in school settings.

Method

The authors provide an overview of the PBIS framework and focus on its applicability in classroom-based settings. The process of implementing PBIS in classrooms and other settings such as speech-language therapy is discussed.

Conclusions

This tutorial provides speech-language pathologists with an overview of PBIS and may facilitate their understanding of how to implement PBIS in nonclassroom settings.

The role of signals in two variations of differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate procedures

Differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedules are used to decrease the overall rate of, but not eliminate, a target response. Two variations of DRL, spaced-responding and full-session, exist. Preliminary comparative analyses suggest that the two schedules function differently when unsignaled. We compared response rates under these two DRL variations with and without signals. In Experiment 1, five preschool students played a game in which points were earned under DRL schedules. In some sessions, a stimulus signaled when responses would be reinforced (S+) or not reinforced (S-). In others, only an S- was present. Signals (S+/S-) facilitated and maintained responding in both types of DRL schedules. In Experiment 2, we modified the signals with five different preschoolers. Instead of an S- only, we did not present any signals. Elimination and high variability of the target response were observed with the S- only and absence of S+/S-, respectively. Signaled DRL schedules are recommended for application.

Using differential reinforcement of low rates to reduce children's requests for teacher attention

We evaluated the effectiveness of full-session differential reinforcement of low rates of behavior (DRL) on 3 primary school children's rates of requesting attention from their teacher. Using baseline rates of responding and teacher recommendations, we set a DRL schedule that was substantially lower than baseline yet still allowed the children access to teacher assistance. The DRL schedule was effective in reducing children's requests for assistance and approval, and the teacher found the intervention highly useful and acceptable. The possible mechanisms that account for behavior change using full-session DRL schedules are discussed.