Assessing and Programming Generalized Behavioral Reduction Across Multiple Stimulus Parameters: A Review

1. Assessing and Programming Generalized Behavioral Reduction Across Multiple Stimulus Parameters: A Review Megan Duffy Caldwell College

2. Shore, Iwata, Lerman, & Shirley (1994) • Identified “training sufficient exemplars” (Stokes & Baer, 1977) as a valuable and frequently used technique to program for and assess generalization • Examined stimulus control as it relates to generalization as reviewed by Kirby and Bickel (1988): • Three points were considered • 1. Conditioned controlling relations between stimuli may inhibit the acquisition of stimulus control • 2. Irrelevant stimuli may exert stimulus control over behavior • 3. Specific dimensions or features of stimuli may acquire stimulus control

3. Shore et al., (1994) • Attempted to further the existing research on generalization by investigating stimulus parameters involved • Evaluated generalization with respect to the reduction of inappropriate behavior • Specifically, the reemergence of inappropriate behavior when stimulus parameters are changed

4. Shore et al., (1994) • Identified 2 problems in the generalization of behavior reduction • Because extinction may be in effect: 1. Probes should be limited (because behavior may decrease as a result of extinction) 2. Probed novel stimuli lose novelty (behavior has met extinction “consequence”)

5. Shore et al., (1994) • Three salient stimulus parameters identified concerning escape-maintained self-injury (behavior of interest) 1. therapist 2. setting 3. instructional content

6. Purpose of the Study • Purpose: - to assess and program for generalization across different stimulus parameters following treatment of escape (from demand) maintained self-injury

7. Participants • Participants were 5 adult males with severe/profound mental retardation who lived in a residential facility and who engaged in self-injurious behavior (SIB) 1. Michael, 44 years old SIB: hand-biting often associated with crying, flopping on the floor, and eloping

8. Participants 2. Charles, 45 years old SIB: head and body hitting, arm and hand biting, and face and body scratching 3. Jeff, 44 years old SIB: head banging and hand and arm biting 4. Jasper, 40 years old SIB: head banging and head and body hitting

9. Participants and Setting 5. Jacob, 44 years old SIB: hand biting and head hitting • Setting consisted of 6 different rooms of a day treatment center of the facility

10. Data Collection • Dependent variables were rate of SIB and percentage of compliance with instructions • Self-injury was operationally defined according to behavior emitted by each participant (calculated as number of responses/session time) • Compliance defined as performing a requested task without physical assistance (calculated as number of compliance occurrences /number of instructional trials) • IOA data were collected for at least 25% of sessions with each participant and agreement ranged from 93.5 to 99.9%

11. Functional Analysis Assessment • Conducted with each participant prior to the study according to the procedure outlined by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982) • Results revealed that SIB emitted by each participant was maintained by escape from demand, or negative reinforcement

12. Functional Analysis Assessment Percentage of SIB occurrence highest during demand condition

13. Design • Design included replication across participants and reversal conditions between probe and treatment sessions • Utilized 6 stimulus parameters in different conditions • Up to 6 therapists, settings, and sets of instructional materials (demands) identified for each participant

14. Stimulus Parameters • An assessment conducted prior to the study identified stimulus parameters of demands for each participant that when presented, resulted in occurrence of SIB in 35% or more of trials and occurrence of compliance in less than or equal to 25% of trials • Assessment consisted of a 3 prompt sequence of verbal instruction, touch prompt, and physical assistance after presentation of demands (which occurred every 30 seconds) • 1 known and 5 novel therapists selected and 6 relatively barren rooms selected for each participant

15. Baseline • Included 2 sets of 3 stimulus parameters, varied in 8 combinations and presented in differing orders for each participant • Three-prompt sequence used • Consequence for compliance consisted of verbal praise • Consequence for SIB was removal of demand (escape)

16. Treatment • Baseline procedures were maintained with the exception that extinction was implemented upon the occurrence of SIB • Tasks remained present and therapist prompted task completion • Treatment began with setting, therapist, and demand held constant (labeled as S1T1D1) • Treatment completed when rate of SIB was less than .5 responses per minute for 5 consecutive sessions • Escape extinction utilized throughout treatment and generalization probes

17. Generalization Probe Sequence • Novel stimulus parameters (S2T2D2) presented following treatment - if rate of SIB was .5 responses per minute or lower, generalization had occurred - if rate of SIB was higher than .5 responses per minute, treatment was implemented with 1 new stimulus parameter (setting); the other 2 parameters remained constant (S2T1D1)

18. Generalization Probe Sequence • Again, if rate was lower than .5 for 5 consecutive sessions, another probe occurred (S3T3D3) • Generalization present if rate lower than .5, if not, another new stimulus parameter (therapist) was used in treatment (S2T2D1) • This continued until generalization occurred (up to S5T5D5), or when 3 stimulus parameters were used in treatment and generalization had not occurred

19. Generalization Probe Sequence • At this point, “training for novelty” began • 3 stimulus parameters varied (e.g., S1 through S4, T1 though T4, D1 though D4) in random combination in treatment until criterion was reached • Generalization probes (S5T5D5 or S6T6D6) were then conducted

20. Generalization Probe Sequence

21. Results • Charles • Baseline: • Relatively stable rates of SIB (M=.86 responses / minute) • Compliance mean = 1.3% • Treatment: • Reduction in rate of SIB (M=.47 responses / minute) • Compliance mean = 15.6% • Lengthiest treatment condition, but showed generalization in first probe (S2T2D2)

22. Results • Jasper • Baseline: • Variable rates / downward trend of SIB (M=1.6 responses / minute) • Compliance mean = 41.5% • Treatment • Mean rate of SIB during last 10 sessions = .94 responses per minute • Compliance mean = 86% • Generalized treatment effects in first probe (S2T2D2)

23. Results • Michael • Baseline: • Stable rates of SIB (M=.91 responses / minute) • Compliance mean = 0% • Treatment: • SIB mean = .2 responses per minute • Compliance mean = 7.3% • Generalization occurred during S4T4D4 probe; required two additional treatment sessions (S2T1D1 and S2T2D1)

24. Results • Jeff • Baseline: • Variable rates of SIB (M=4.27 responses / minute) • Compliance mean = 22.3% • Treatment • SIB mean = 2.0 responses / minute • Compliance mean = 75.2% • Generalization did not occur on probes S2T2D2 to S5T5D5; required treatment up to S2T2D2 • Generalization occurred by training for novelty (varied S1 through S4, T1 through T4, D1 through D4) • Behavior generalization in S5T5D5 probe

25. Results • Jacob • Baseline: • Variable rates of SIB (M=1.27 responses / minute) • Compliance mean = 4.6% • Treatment • Mean of SIB = .5 responses / minute after first treatment • Compliance mean = 27.8% • No generalization occurred during S2T2D2 through S5T5D5 probes • Treatment completed with S2T2D2 • Generalization occurred on S6T6D6 following “training for novelty” (varying S1 through S5, T1 through T5, D1 through D5)

26. Graph of SIB Rate

27. Graph of Percentage of Compliance

28. Discussion • Results showed participant differences in regards to facilitation of generalization • Charles and Jasper showed generalized behavior reduction in first probe; no further treatment was needed • Michael required 1 additional treatment with 2 new stimulus parameters (setting and therapist) before generalization occurred • Jeff and Jacob showed no generalized behavior until “training for novelty” occurred

29. Discussion • Number of treatment sessions required to meet criterion varied across participants • Based on these numbers: • Michael: parameter affecting generalization was either therapist or setting • Jeff: parameter affecting generalization was either therapist or demand

30. Discussion • Compliance: • Jasper and Jeff: compliance increased from baseline; an increase in compliance was correlated with a decrease in SIB (decreases in compliance seen in probes, however) • Jacob: increase in compliance towards end, but not as consistent and Jasper and Jeff • Charles and Michael: decrease in SIB did not correlate with increases in compliance • These two participants showed the least amount of compliance during assessments

31. Discussion • Study identified a method of assessing and programming for generalization by evaluating stimulus parameters involved in stimulus control of SIB • Failure of reductions in inappropriate behavior in novel setting may not be due to ineffective treatment (although a possibility) but rather a lack of generalization

32. Discussion • Further analysis should include examination of: • features of stimulus parameters needed • which of 3 parameters are responsible for acquisition or inhibition of generalization

33. Discussion • Authors suggested possibly: • Probing one parameter or most recently treated parameter and then probing across other parameters or • Conducting novel probes of all three parameters and if generalization is lacking, probe each parameter individually • These may not be the most parsimonious approaches, however

34. Discussion • Future research could also examine presenting stimulus parameters in varying sequences and treating one stimulus parameter at a time and then probing novel stimuli • Again, may not be the most parsimonious approaches • Assessment of generalized behavior reductions should also be done in the natural setting with caregivers in the home

35. Discussion • The techniques utilized were successful in facilitating generalized behavior reduction • Using multiple exemplars across many stimulus parameters was an effective tool in programming for and assessing generalization as had been previously noted by Stokes and Baer (1977)

36. Reference Shore, B.A., Iwata, B.A., Lerman, D.C., & Shirley, M.J. (1994). Assessing and programming generalized behavioral reduction across multiple stimulus parameters. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 371-384.