ERIC EJ877530: Assessment of the Relative Effects of Attention and Escape on Noncompliance

2010·0.12 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2010, 43, 143–147 NUMBER1 (SPRING2010)
ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIVE EFFECTS OF ATTENTION AND
ESCAPE ON NONCOMPLIANCE
NICOLE M. RODRIGUEZ, RACHEL H. THOMPSON, AND TANYA Y. BAYNHAM
UNIVERSITYOFKANSAS
Thecurrentstudypresentsamethodforassessingtherelativeeffectsofattentionandescapeon
noncompliance in preschoolers. Attention and escape conditions were alternated in a
multielementdesign,andacontingency reversalprocedure, inwhich onetest conditionserved
asacontrolfortheother,wasusedtodemonstratecontrol.Forall3participants,noncompliance
wasmaintained,atleastinpart,bysocialattention.Functionalanalysesofnoncompliancesuch
astheone described here maybevaluablefor developing function-based treatments.
Keywords: compliance, functional analysis, noncompliance, preschoolers
_______________________________________________________________________________
Noncompliance with instructions is one of following compliance), prescription of general
the most common problems for which children treatment packages without knowledge of
are referred for behavioral treatment (Bernal, maintaining variables may result in the imple-
Klinnert, & Schultz, 1980; Miles & Wilder, mentation of contraindicated treatments. For
2009) and has been reported in between 8% example, some parent-training packages recom-
and 54% of young children (Crowther, Bond, mend that parents respond to noncompliance
& Rolf, 1981). Noncompliance may hinder with time-out (e.g., Eyberg & Boggs, 1989;
social and academic development (Kalb & Hembree-Kigin & McNeil, 1995; McMahon
Loeber, 2003); conversely, compliance is rated &Forehand,2003),aninterventionthatwould
as one of the most important school readiness be effective for attention-maintained noncom-
skills by preschool and kindergarten teachers pliancebutwouldexacerbateescape-maintained
(Hains, Fowler, Schwartz, Kottwitz, & Rosen- noncompliance. Likewise, escape extinction,
kotter, 1989). Given the prevalence and which involves continued prompting, may
potential negative effects of noncompliance, it inadvertently reinforce attention-maintained
is important to develop methods to treat this noncompliance.
problem behavior effectively. Recent research on noncompliance suggests
Some parent-training packages recommend that, similar to other childhood behavior
the use of specific treatment components problems, variables responsible for its mainte-
without first identifying the function of a nance vary across individuals and can include
particular child’s noncompliance. Although both positive and negative reinforcement.
these packages usually include components that Reimers et al. (1993) compared levels of
are designed to favor desirable behavior (e.g., noncomplianceduringattentionandescapetest
recommending that attention be delivered only conditions with those observed in a free-play
control condition. Five of 6 children displayed
Nicole Rodriguez and Rachel Thompson are now at the highest levels of noncompliance in the
WesternNewEngland College.WethankLindsayPeters attention condition; the remaining participant’s
and Devon Ezell for their assistance with data collection
noncompliance was sensitive to escape. How-
andanalysis.
Correspondence should be addressed to Rachel H. ever, results are difficult to interpret because
Thompson,WesternNewEnglandCollege,1215Wilbra- consequences in test conditions were arranged
ham Rd., Springfield, Massachusetts 01119 (e-mail:
for noncompliance and other forms of inap-
[email protected]).
doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-143 propriate behavior (e.g., crying, hitting). In
143
144 NICOLE M. RODRIGUEZ et al.
addition, no demands were presented in the adjacent observation booth. The session room
free-play condition; therefore, there was no contained reading material for the experiment-
opportunity for noncompliance. er,asmalltrashbin,andover40piecesofwhite
Wilder, Harris, Reagan, and Rasey (2007) paper (approximately 0.10 m by 0.13 m)
evaluated 2 preschoolers’ noncompliance when scattered across the room.
initiating a nonpreferred activity (escape condi-
tion), terminating a preferred activity (tangible Target Behavior, Data Collection, and
condition), and initiating a preferred activity Interobserver Agreement
(control).Forbothparticipants,thehighestlevels Trained observers collected paper-and-pencil
of noncompliance were observed in the tangible data on noncompliance and compliance. Com-
condition in which noncompliance resulted in pliance was recorded when more than half of at
continued access to a preferred activity. That least one piece of paper passed the opening of
study highlighted the role of positive reinforce- the trash bin within 5 s of the instruction.
ment (in the form of preferred activities) in the Noncompliance was recorded if the child failed
maintenance of noncompliance, but it was not to meet this requirement. A 5-s latency was
designed to evaluate the role of attention. selected based on the proximity of the materials
Becauseattentionandescapeappeartobethe and simple nature of the task as well as
mostcommonconsequencesfornoncompliance descriptive data on mean latency to compliance
among young children (see Ndoro, Hanley, among young children (Wruble, Sheeber,
Tiger, & Heal, 2006), it is particularly Sorensen, Boggs, & Eyberg, 1991).
important to understand the role of these A second observer independently collected
variablesin themaintenance of noncompliance. dataforameanof48%ofsessions (range,33%
Thus, the purpose of the current study was to to 60%), with equal distribution across condi-
describe a method for evaluating the relative tions. Interobserver agreement was calculated
contributions of escape and attention in the on a trial-by-trial basis by dividing the number
maintenance of noncompliance. Our proce- ofagreementsbythetotalnumberoftrials(i.e.,
dures were similar to the functional analysis 10) and converting the resulting ratio to a
described by Kern, Delaney, Hilt, Bailin, and percentage. An agreement was defined as both
Elliot (2002), which was designed to evaluate observers recording the same response (i.e.,
noncompliance of an adult woman and adoles- noncomplianceorcompliance)foratrial.Mean
cent boy who had been diagnosed with agreement across children was 99% (range,
developmental disabilities. 97% to 100%).
Procedure
METHOD
Sessions lasted 5 min. Each session consisted
Participants, Setting, and Materials of 10 30-s trials. Prior to the session, the
Three children who attended a university- experimenter briefly described the experimental
affiliated early childhood program were includ- contingencies while demonstrating the conse-
ed in the study based on teacher reports of quence for noncompliance and compliance. At
noncompliance in the classroom. Sue was a the start of each trial, the experimenter assured
typically developing 2-year-old girl, Lee was a that the trash bin was within arm’s reach of the
typically developing 4-year-old boy, and Ben child and instructed him or her to ‘‘put the
was a 4-year-old boy who had been diagnosed paper in the bin.’’ The experimenter delivered
with Down syndrome. the programmed consequences for compliance
Sessions were conducted in a room (3 m by and noncompliance until the presentation of
3 m) equipped with one-way observation in an the next instruction (i.e., 25 to 30 s).
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF NONCOMPLIANCE 145
Attention. The attention condition was the withdrawal of attention and compliance
designed to test whether noncompliance was resulted in attention. The opposite pattern of
sensitive to the forms of attention likely to results would have indicated that escape was
follow noncompliance under typical conditions more valuable.
(e.g., verbal and physical encouragement to
complete the task). Contingent on noncompli-
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
ance,theexperimenterprovidedattentioninthe
form of verbal cajoling (e.g., ‘‘Come on, you For all 3 participants, levels of noncompli-
know you can do this!’’) while physically ance were consistently higher in the attention
guiding the participant to complete the task. condition (Figure 1), suggesting that (a) non-
In other words, noncompliance resulted in compliance was maintained, at least in part, by
experimenter attention but no escape from the social attention, and (b) attention was relatively
task. If the participant complied, the contin- moreinfluentialthanescapeinthemaintenance
gencies were reversed; the participant received a of these individuals’ noncompliance. Levels of
break from the task but no attention. Specifi- compliance are not depicted because those are
cally, the experimenter removed the trash bin, the inverse of noncompliance. Lee showed the
movedawayfromtheparticipant,andlookedat greatest discrepancy in noncompliance across
a magazine until it was time to present the next the two conditions, with noncompliance in a
instruction25to 30 slater. Thus,experimenter mean of 73% and 23% of intervals in the
attentionwas availableonly fornoncompliance. attention and escape conditions, respectively.
Escape.The escapecondition wasdesigned to Sue’s levels of noncompliance were lower
test whether noncompliance was sensitive to relative to Lee’s, but her results were similar in
escapefromtasks.Thisconditionwassimilarto that levels of noncompliance were higher in the
the attention condition except that the contin- attention condition (M 5 38%) than in the
gencies for noncompliance and compliance escape condition (M 5 10%). A greater degree
were reversed. That is, contingent on noncom- of overlap was evident in Ben’s data, with
pliance, the experimenter removed the task for noncompliance in a mean of 55% and 36% in
the remainder of the trial and did not provide the attention and escape conditions, respective-
attention. Compliance resulted in experimenter ly.
attention in the form of praise (e.g., ‘‘You are The degree of overlap evident in Ben’s data
doing such a good job!’’) and continued may be due to multiple treatment interference.
presentation of the task via physical guidance. If so, implementing these procedures within a
reversal design may have produced more
Experimental Design discriminated responding and allowed more
The attention and escape conditions were conclusive statements regarding Ben’s data. It is
alternated in a multielement design. Further- also possible that his noncompliance was
more, control was demonstrated through a sensitivetobothattentionandescape.However,
contingency reversal strategy (see Thompson because this assessment did not include a
& Iwata, 2005, for a discussion) in which one condition during which no differential conse-
test condition served as a control for the other. quences were provided for noncompliance, it is
If noncompliance was maintained by attention, not possible to detect multiple control for any
one would expect (a) high levels of noncompli- oftheparticipants.Itshouldbenoted,however,
ance in the attention condition in which that such a condition would be difficult to
noncompliance produced attention and (b) arrange because no response to noncompliance
low levels of noncompliance in the escape would constitute escape, and prevention of
condition in which noncompliance resulted in escape requires some interaction with the
146 NICOLE M. RODRIGUEZ et al.
Figure1. Percentage oftrialswith noncompliance for the3 participants.
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF NONCOMPLIANCE 147
participant (i.e., attention). Although this Crowther, J. H., Bond, L. A., & Rolf, J. E. (1981). The
incidence, prevalence, and severity of behavior
assessment allowed only tests of the effects of
disordersamongpreschool-agedchildrenindaycare.
attention relative to escape, higher levels of Journal ofAbnormal ChildPsychology, 9,23–42.
noncompliance were observed in the attention Eyberg,S.M.,&Boggs,S.R.(1989).Parenttrainingfor
oppositional-defiantpreschoolers.InC.E.Schaefe&
conditionacrossallparticipants,suggesting that
J. M. Briesmeister (Eds.), Handbook of parent
attention provided through repeated verbal and training: Parentsas co-therapists forchildren’s behavior
physical prompting contributed to noncompli- problems (pp. 105–132). NewYork: Wiley.
Hains,A.H.,Fowler,S.A.,Schwartz,I.S.,Kottwitz,E.,&
ance exhibited by these preschoolers.
Rosenkotter,L.(1989).Acomparisonofpreschooland
These results are for the most part consistent
kindergartenteacherexpectationsforschoolreadiness.
with several widely used parent-training pro- EarlyChildhoodResearchQuarterly,4,75–88.
grams that recommend the use of time-out to Hembree-Kigin, T. L., & McNeil, C. B. (1995). Parent-
childinteraction therapy.New York:Plenum.
reduce noncompliance (e.g., Eyberg & Boggs,
Kalb,L.M.,&Loeber,R.(2003).Childdisobedienceand
1989). Together, the current study and that of noncompliance: A review.Pediatrics, 111,641–652.
Wilder et al. (2007) suggest that positive Kern,L.,Delaney,B.A.,Hilt,A.,Bailin,D.E.,&Elliot,
C. (2002). An analysis of physical guidance as
reinforcement is likely to contribute to the
reinforcement for noncompliance. Behavior Modifi-
maintenance of noncompliance in children of cation,26,516–536.
typical development, a behavior that, when McMahon, R. J., & Forehand, R. L. (2003). Helping the
noncompliant child: Family-based treatment foropposi-
considered topographically, may appear to be
tional behavior. NewYork: Guilford.
an escape response. However, because time- Miles, N. I., & Wilder, D. A. (2009). The effects of
out would be ineffective if noncompliance behavioralskillstrainingoncaregiverimplementation
of guided compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior
was maintained by escape from instructions,
Analysis,42,405–410.
treatments for noncompliance must be individ-
Ndoro,V.W.,Hanley,G.P.,Tiger,J.H.,&Heal,N.A.
ualized based on the function of problem (2006). A descriptive assessment of instruction-based
interactions in the preschool classroom. Journal of
behavior.
Applied BehaviorAnalysis,39, 79–90.
The current study presents one method for
Reimers, T. M., Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J., Sasso, G.
examining the relative effects of attention and M.,Berg,W.K.,&Steege,M.W.(1993).Assessing
escape on an individual’s noncompliance. Such thefunctionalpropertiesofnoncompliantbehaviorin
an outpatient setting. Child & Family Behavior
an analysis may form the basis for treatment
Therapy,15,1–15.
evaluations and recommendations. Additional Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2005). A review of
research in this area is needed to inform those reinforcement control procedures. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis,38,257–278.
who design parent-training programs and
Wilder,D.A.,Harris,C.,Reagan,R.,&Rasey,A.(2007).
preschool classrooms so that they can be Functional analysis and treatment of noncompliance
maximally effective with these children. by preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis,40,173–177.
Wruble,M.K.,Sheeber,L.B.,Sorensen,E.K.,Boggs,S.
REFERENCES R.,&Eyberg,S.(1991).Empiricalderivationofchild
compliance time. Child & Family Behavior Therapy,
Bernal,M.E.,Klinnert,M.D.,&Schultz,L.A.(1980). 13,57–68.
Outcomeevaluationofbehavioralparenttrainingand
client-centered parent counseling for children with Received November 20,2008
conduct problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Final acceptanceApril 6, 2009
Analysis, 13,677–691. Action Editor,Joel Ringdahl