Billets de Michelle Dawson

Billet publié sur Twitter/X le 05/08/2021 02:07

Twitter/X Publication avec DOI crossref Extrait cité dans le billet Question posée par Dawson dans le billet Lien intégré au billet

Liens cités structurés

1 ressource citée

Publication avec DOI Récupéré Publication crossref

Michelle A. Frank‐Crawford, John C. Borrero, Eli T. Newcomb, Trang Doan, Alyssa Fisher, Griffin W. Rooker (2021). Accumulated and distributed response–reinforcer arrangements during the treatment of escape‐maintained problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(4), 1566-1585. Wiley.

Date de publication
03/08/2021
Identifiant
10.1002/jaba.870
Auteurs
Michelle A. Frank‐Crawford, John C. Borrero, Eli T. Newcomb, Trang Doan, Alyssa Fisher, Griffin W. Rooker
Source
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
Détails
54(4), 1566-1585
Type de référence
article
Éditeur
Wiley
Source de métadonnées
crossref

Résumé

Contingent positive reinforcement has proven more effective in treating escape‐maintained problem behavior than contingent negative reinforcement, particularly when problem behavior continues to produce escape. However, this research has overwhelmingly used distributed‐reinforcement arrangements, where tasks and reinforcer access are interspersed throughout the work period. An alternative to interspersal involves allowing the individual to accumulate and then receive a larger quantity of reinforcement once work requirements are completed; this is known as an accumulated‐reinforcement arrangement. The current study examined the efficacy of, and preference for positive (food) and negative (break) reinforcement contingencies delivered in accumulated and distributed arrangements in the treatment of escape‐maintained problem behavior. In Experiment 1, accumulated break was preferred for 4 of 5 participants and accumulated food was preferred for 3 of 5. In Experiment 2, accumulated break was similarly effective to distributed break for 3 of 5 participants and accumulated and distributed food were equally effective for 4 participants.

Auteur·ices de l’étude dans cette référence citée