Influence of motivating operations and discriminative stimuli on challenging behavior maintained by positive reinforcement

Most paraprofessionals are not well trained to implement evidence-based practices that can improve student outcomes. In this study, we trained a paraprofessional to use evidence-based instructional practices with an elementary student with a severe disability who exhibited challenging behavior. Through functional analysis, we determined the function of the student’s problem behavior was to escape instructional demands. We used a multiple probe across behavior design to test the efficacy of video modeling and performance feedback on the paraprofessional’s implementation of three evidence-based instructional plans that incorporated high rates of positive reinforcement. Training strategies resulted in high rates of paraprofessional implementation fidelity, and paraprofessional implementation translated into improved student outcomes. These results provide an illustration of how effective paraprofessional training can promote learning for a student with severe disabilities and challenging behavior.

Download Full-text

Motivating Operations and Discriminative Stimuli: Distinguishable but Interactive Variables

Behavior Analysis in Practice ◽

10.1007/s40617-019-00400-2 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 13 (2) ◽

pp. 502-508

Author(s):

Alan Poling ◽

Amin D. Lotfizadeh ◽

Timothy L. Edwards

Keyword(s):

Motivating Operations ◽

Discriminative Stimuli

Download Full-text

Functional Analysis of Challenging Behavior in People with Severe Intellectual Disabilities

Psychological Reports ◽

10.2466/15.pr0.115c26z4 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 115 (3) ◽

pp. 655-669 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

C. Delgado-Casas ◽

J. I. Navarro ◽

R. Garcia-Gonzalez-Gordon ◽

E. Marchena

Keyword(s):

Functional Analysis ◽

Intellectual Disabilities ◽

Challenging Behavior ◽

Positive Reinforcement ◽

Negative Reinforcement ◽

Challenging Behaviors ◽

Experimental Conditions ◽

Analysis Methodology ◽

People With Intellectual Disabilities ◽

Functional Analysis Methodology

Challenging behaviors exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities often hinder the acquisition of academic, social, and life skills. Functional analysis has been useful for assessing challenging behavior in various settings. The purpose of this study was to implement an operant methodology for recognizing the functional properties of challenging behavior in people with intellectual disabilities. Four adults diagnosed with profound intellectual disability received assessment under several experimental conditions using a functional analysis methodology: social attention as positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement such as the termination of demands, positive tangible reinforcements, absence of social contingencies, and escape from noisy stimuli. Results showed that different types of reinforcement or avoiding contingencies affected the rate of aggression, self-injury, disruption, stereotypy, or socially offensive behaviors, and functional analysis may potentially be a viable alternative for identifying challenging behaviors.

Download Full-text

Using Positive Reinforcement to Decrease Challenging Behavior

Effective Practices for Children with Autism ◽

10.1093/med:psych/9780195317046.003.0017 ◽

2008 ◽

pp. 413-432 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Lee Kern ◽

Anastasia Kokina

Keyword(s):

Challenging Behavior ◽

Positive Reinforcement

Download Full-text

A Problem-Solving Approach to Teaching Operant Conditioning

Teaching of Psychology ◽

10.1207/s15328023top3002_06 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 30 (2) ◽

pp. 114-116 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Carolyn Shields ◽

Margaret Gredler

Keyword(s):

Problem Solving ◽

Operant Conditioning ◽

Positive Reinforcement ◽

Negative Reinforcement ◽

Psychology Students ◽

Classroom Observations ◽

Regular Classroom ◽

Discriminative Stimuli ◽

Approach To Teaching ◽

Basic Concepts

Psychology students frequently have misconceptions of basic concepts in operant conditioning. Prior classroom observations revealed that most students defined positive reinforcement as reward and equated negative reinforcement and punishment. Students also labeled positive reinforcement as rewarding good behavior and negative reinforcement as punishing bad behavior. We developed 14 problem-solving situations that involve positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and punishment. Students analyzed these situations in regular classroom sessions and as homework. In these exercises, students specified the discriminative stimuli, the responses, and the nature of the consequences. Correlated t tests on the pre- and posttest means indicated a significant increase in students' understanding of these concepts.

Download Full-text

Refining the Motivating Operation Construct: Eliminating the Value-Altering Function and Specifying the Behavior-Altering Functions

10.31234/osf.io/x9bzu ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Matthew Lewon ◽

Linda J. Hayes

Keyword(s):

Individual Differences ◽

Empirical Evidence ◽

Motivating Operations ◽

Empirical Literature ◽

Motivating Operation ◽

Discriminative Stimuli ◽

Multiple Functions ◽

A Value

Motivating operations (MOs) are held to 1) alter the value/efficacy of consequential stimuli (value-altering function) and 2) alter behavior relevant to these stimuli (behavior-altering function). These two functions are considered critically against empirical evidence to evaluate the extent to which each corresponds to actual observations of behavior-environment relations. On this basis, the following refinements are suggested. First, positing a value-altering function of MOs is unnecessary because observations that have been taken as evidence for this function are adequately and parsimoniously described in terms of MOs’ behavior-altering functions, particularly their effects on the evocative efficacy of discriminative stimuli that have been associated with certain consequential events. Second, the precision of descriptions of the behavior-altering functions of MOs may be increased by explicitly acknowledging that MOs serve multiple functions. In addition to their motivational functions, MOs affect behavior by serving eliciting, discriminative, and reinforcing or punishing functions. Interactions between the effects of different MOs and biologically-based individual differences in susceptibilities to certain MOs also play a role determining their behavior-altering functions. In surveying the existing empirical literature relevant to these issues, areas in which further investigation is needed are highlighted.

Download Full-text

Self-Injurious Behavior vs. Nonsuicidal Self-Injury

Crisis ◽

10.1027/0227-5910/a000127 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 33 (2) ◽

pp. 106-112 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Christopher M. Bloom ◽

Shareen Holly ◽

Adam M. P. Miller

Keyword(s):

Positive Reinforcement ◽

Empirical Investigation ◽

High Stress ◽

Animal Research ◽

Stress Conditions ◽

Human Populations ◽

Pharmacological Interventions ◽

Self Injury ◽

Cns Stimulant ◽

Nonsuicidal Self Injury

Background: Historically, the field of self-injury has distinguished between the behaviors exhibited among individuals with a developmental disability (self-injurious behaviors; SIB) and those present within a normative population (nonsuicidal self-injury; NSSI),which typically result as a response to perceived stress. More recently, however, conclusions about NSSI have been drawn from lines of animal research aimed at examining the neurobiological mechanisms of SIB. Despite some functional similarity between SIB and NSSI, no empirical investigation has provided precedent for the application of SIB-targeted animal research as justification for pharmacological interventions in populations demonstrating NSSI. Aims: The present study examined this question directly, by simulating an animal model of SIB in rodents injected with pemoline and systematically manipulating stress conditions in order to monitor rates of self-injury. Methods: Sham controls and experimental animals injected with pemoline (200 mg/kg) were assigned to either a low stress (discriminated positive reinforcement) or high stress (discriminated avoidance) group and compared on the dependent measures of self-inflicted injury prevalence and severity. Results: The manipulation of stress conditions did not impact the rate of self-injury demonstrated by the rats. The results do not support a model of stress-induced SIB in rodents. Conclusions: Current findings provide evidence for caution in the development of pharmacotherapies of NSSI in human populations based on CNS stimulant models. Theoretical implications are discussed with respect to antecedent factors such as preinjury arousal level and environmental stress.

Download Full-text