ERIC EJ877532: The Effects of Fixed-Time Escape on Inappropriate and Appropriate Classroom Behavior

2010·0.21 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2010, 43, 149–153 NUMBER1 (SPRING2010)
THE EFFECTS OF FIXED-TIME ESCAPE ON INAPPROPRIATE AND
APPROPRIATE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR
RACHAEL D. WALLER AND THOMAS S. HIGBEE
UTAHSTATEUNIVERSITY
Few studies have explored the effects of fixed-time (FT) reinforcement on escape-maintained
behaviorofstudentsinaclassroomsetting.WemeasuredtheeffectsofanFTscheduleonthe
disruptive and appropriate academic behaviors of 2 junior high students in a public school
setting. Results demonstrated that FT escape from tasks resulted in a substantial decrease in
disruptivebehavior andanincrease intime engagedin tasksfor both participants.
Keywords: escape-maintainedbehavior,fixed-timereinforcementschedules,function-based
interventions, noncontingent reinforcement
_______________________________________________________________________________
Thedeliveryofreinforcementonafixed-time Although the results of these studies are
(FT) schedule (sometimes referred to as non- encouraging, additional research is necessary to
contingent reinforcement or NCR) has been determine the utility of FT procedures in
shown to reduce rates of disruption, aggression, classroom settings. We sought to build on and
and self-injury, primarily with individuals with extend this work in several ways. First, we
significant cognitive impairments (Carr et al., examined the effectiveness of FT reinforcement
2000). Kodak, Miltenberger, and Romaniuk schedules on disruptive behavior maintained by
(2003), for example, compared the effects of an negative reinforcement. Second, we collected
FT schedule and differential negative reinforce- data on the appropriate academic behavior of
mentofotherbehavior(DNRO)ontheescape- participants to determine whether appropriate
maintained behavior and compliance of 2 4- behavior would increase as a result of the FT
year-old boys during instructional sessions in a escape intervention. Finally, we evaluated the
home setting. They found that an FT schedule practical utility of thin FT procedures in a
of escape from tasks that was faded to 2 min classroom setting.
decreased disruptive behavior and increased
compliance to instructions. Recently, Austin
METHOD
and Soeda (2008) extended this line of research
Participants and Setting
by demonstrating the effectiveness of FT
Teachers at the school identified 2 students
reinforcement in a public school setting. After
who displayed highly disruptive behavior and
functional assessments identified social atten-
referred them for participation in the study.
tionasthemaintainingvariableforparticipants’
Brent (13 years old) and David (14 years old)
off-task behavior, they delivered FT attention
attended the eighth grade in a self-contained
ona4-minschedule,whichtheteacherselected.
classroom in a public junior high school. Brent
The results indicated that the off-task behavior
was classified with emotional disturbance.
of both participants decreased and remained
David was classified with a specific learning
low in comparison to baseline.
disability.
We conducted all sessions of the treatment
AddresscorrespondencetoThomasS.Higbee,Depart- evaluation during math class. The classroom
mentofSpecialEducationandRehabilitation,UtahState wasstaffedbyonespecialeducationteacherand
University, 2865 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84322 (e-
a paraprofessional. Brent’s and David’s classes
mail:[email protected]).
doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-149 contained a total of 10 and 12 students,
149
150 RACHAEL D. WALLER and THOMAS S. HIGBEE
respectively. An additional special education classroom except for the peer attention condi-
paraprofessionalemployedbytheschooldistrict tion, which occurred in the classroom. The
conducted all sessions. The first author trained escapeconditionwasassociatedwiththehighest
her to conduct the functional analysis and levelsofproblembehaviorforbothparticipants.
treatment sessions through modeling, practice, We evaluated the effects of the FT schedule
and feedback. on problem and appropriate behavior in the
classroom using a reversal design. The regular
Response Measurement and
classroom management system (i.e., intermit-
Interobserver Agreement
tent reprimands and reminders to stay on task)
We defined disruption as talking out without was in place during all sessions. During
permission, inappropriate hand gestures, mak- baseline, the paraprofessional gave the partici-
ing noises (i.e., singing, humming, tapping),
pant independent math tasks and a verbal
playing with or throwing objects, or getting out
instruction to begin working. The classroom
of the seat without permission. We defined
teacher behaved as usual, giving instructions,
appropriate academic behavior as writing on the
answering students’ questions, and providing
worksheet, operating the calculator, and raising
intermittent reprimands and reminders to keep
the hand and asking questions related to the
working.WedeterminedtheinitialFTschedule
assignment. We used 10-s partial-interval
by measuring the mean latency to the first
recording to measure both dependent variables.
disruptive behavior during baseline sessions
A second observer independently scored
(Lalli, Casey, & Kates, 1997). The mean
disruptive behavior during 42% and 49% of
latency to the first target behavior was 23 s for
sessions and appropriate academic behavior
Brent and 106 s for David. Initially, breaks
during 40% and 49% of sessions for Brent
were 1 min in duration and were later faded to
and David, respectively. We calculated interob-
30 s.
server agreement by dividing the number of
At the beginning of each FT escape session,
intervals with agreements by the number of
the paraprofessional placed two small (5 cm by
intervals with agreements plus disagreements
7 cm) sticky notes on the participant’s desk,
and converting this ratio to a percentage. Mean
which were labeled ‘‘work’’ (yellow note) and
agreementforbothparticipantswasabove95%.
‘‘break’’(orangenote).Atthebeginningofeach
session, the paraprofessional walked by the
Procedure
participant’s desk and pointed to the note
We conducted a functional analysis accord-
labeled‘‘work’’astheprompttobeginworking.
ing to procedures described by Iwata, Dorsey,
At predetermined FT intervals, the paraprofes-
Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994)
sional walked by the participant’s desk and
with two procedural modifications. The para-
pointed to the note labeled ‘‘break’’ to cue the
professional instructed participants to complete
participant to take an in-seat break from
mathworksheets atthebeginning of allsessions
(except control) because teachers reported that instruction. The paraprofessional used one
problem behavior mainly occurred during silent vibrating timer to cue the delivery of
independent seatwork time in math class. The escape on the appropriate reinforcement sched-
second modification involved the inclusion of a ule and a second silent vibrating timer to
peer attention condition in which two peer measure the duration of the breaks. At the end
confederatesprovidedsocialinteractionviabrief of the break, the paraprofessional approached
verbalstatements(e.g.,‘‘Youneedtogetbackto the participant’s desk and pointed to the note
work’’) each time disruption occurred. Sessions labeled ‘‘work’’ as a prompt to return to
took place in a common area outside the working on the assigned task.
FIXED-TIME ESCAPE 151
Figure 1. The percentage of intervals of disruption and appropriate academic behavior for Brent (top) and David
(bottom)during the fixed-time (FT)reinforcement evaluation.
After a brief return to baseline, we rein- creased to 30 s when the FT schedule
stated conditions identical to those in the reached 240 s for both participants. If
first FT phase. We increased the FT schedule disruptive behavior occurred during more than
when the rate of disruptive behavior re- 10% of the intervals for three consecutive
mained under 10% for three consecutive sessions, we decreased the FT schedule by 30 s
sessions. The duration of the break de- until the disruptive behavior remained below
152 RACHAEL D. WALLER and THOMAS S. HIGBEE
10% of the intervals for three consecutive sessions. Third, David’s appropriate behavior
sessions. did not decrease when treatment was with-
drawn, perhaps because the behavior was
controlled by contingencies other than the FT
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
reinforcement schedule. Alternatively, the par-
Figure 1 shows the effects of FT escape on tial-interval data may not have been sensitive
the disruption and appropriate academic be- enough to detect small changes in behavior.
havior of both participants. Brent’s disruption Furthermore, we did not collect data on
rapidly decreased when treatment was intro- appropriate behavior during Brent’s initial
duced, and the mean percentage of appro- baseline, and levels of appropriate behavior
priate academic behavior was 67%. This were somewhat similar across the initial FT
effect was replicated following the reversal to schedule treatment and the second baseline. As
baseline. Disruption occurred during less than such, any conclusions regarding increases in
10% of intervals as the schedule was thinned to appropriate behavior as a result of treatment
300 s. implementation should be interpreted with
David’s disruption decreased to low levels, caution. Finally, although the teachers were
and appropriate academic behavior increased to asked to select students with high levels of
nearly 100% of intervals during treatment. disruptive behavior for participation in the
During the reversal to baseline, disruption study, they were not asked to identify an
increased and appropriate academic behavior acceptable level of disruption. Thus, the social
remained high. In the second FT phase, validity of the outcomes remains in question.
disruption decreased and appropriate academic One novel aspect of this study was the visual
behavior remained high. cuing system using sticky notes. The notes
These findings provide further evidence for served as a visual yet unobtrusive prompt to
the effectiveness of relatively thin FT reinforce- take a break or work. Discreet prompting
mentschedulesfortreatingproblembehaviorin proceduresarenecessarytominimizedisruption
classroom settings using school staff as behav- to ongoing classroom activities and were more
ior-change agents (Austin & Soeda, 2008). age appropriate for these 2 participants. In
These results also extend those of Kodak et al. addition, discreet prompting procedures, such
(2003) by showing that the provision of FT as the notes used in the current study, may
reinforcement for escape-maintained behavior minimize negative attention from peers (e.g.,
can effectively reduce disruption while increas- teasing),whichcanbeimportantwhenworking
ing appropriate behavior. One limitation of the with adolescent populations.
study was the initial schedule of reinforcement
(i.e., 23 s). This schedule may not be practical
REFERENCES
to implement in a classroom setting without
additional staff assistance. Also, due to time Austin, J. L., & Soeda, J. M. (2008). Fixed-time teacher
attention to decrease off-task behaviors of typically
restrictions, we were not able to thin the FT
developing third graders. Journal of Applied Behavior
schedule beyond 300 s, which may still be Analysis, 41, 279–283.
impractical to implement in classrooms. Sec- Carr, J. E., Coriaty, S., Wilder, D. A., Gaunt, B. T.,
Dozier,C.L.,Britton,L.N.,etal.(2000).Areview
ond, we measured appropriate academic behav-
of ‘‘noncontingent’’ reinforcement as treatment for
ior using partial-interval recording, which may
the aberrant behavior of individuals with develop-
have overestimated the level of appropriate mentaldisabilities.ResearchinDevelopmentalDisabil-
behavior. Academic behavior may have been ities,21,377–391.
Iwata,B.A.,Dorsey,M.F.,Slifer,K.J.,Bauman,K.E.,
evaluated more accurately by measuring the
& Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional
quantity of assignments completed during analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior
FIXED-TIME ESCAPE 153
Analysis, 27, 197–209. (Reprinted from Analysis and Lalli, J. S., Casey, S. D., & Kates, K. (1997).
Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20, Noncontingent reinforcement astreatment forsevere
1982) problem behavior: Some procedural variations. Jour-
Kodak,T.,Miltenberger,R.G.,&Romaniuk,C.(2003). nal ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 30,127–137.
The effects of differential negative reinforcement of
otherbehaviorandnoncontingentescapeoncompli- Received November 24,2008
ance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, Final acceptanceJune 1,2009
379–382. Action Editor,Tiffany Kodak(Dorothea Lerman, mentor)