Efficacy of Various Positive Reinforcers in the Treatment of Destructive Behavior

描述(由申请人提供)：各种积极的增强剂在治疗破坏性行为(例如，自残、攻击性)方面的功效可能会阻碍许多残疾人的发展。这些行为的发生可能有很多原因，然而，对于大多数人来说，问题行为是由社会刺激(例如，获得关注、逃避厌恶的活动)控制的。对这些行为的一种有效治疗方法是不再提供增强剂(即，灭绝)或根据某种替代反应(例如，适当的沟通)提供增强剂。最近的研究表明，提供高度首选的替代增强剂(即那些不保持问题行为的)也是减少问题行为的有效程序。例如，从事注意力维持攻击性行为的人可能会获得非偶然接触首选玩具的机会，而不是注意力。替代增强剂通常使用几种不同偏好评估程序中的一种来确定。然而，最近的研究表明，现有的偏好评估可能不是识别要纳入行为干预的刺激的最佳方法。此外，很少有研究研究在治疗破坏性行为时使用替代增强剂和功能性增强剂的相对有效性。在这项调查中，发育障碍者将通过常用的偏好评估来选择他们喜欢的项目。接下来，将进行功能分析，以确定维持破坏性行为(即社会积极强化)的增强者。在实验1中，我们将通过暴露于累进比率(PR)的强化时间表来比较替代强化剂和功能阳性强化剂，其中在每一次会议的过程中，访问任一种强化剂所需的反应数量将逐渐增加，使得总反应要求随着会议的进行而增加。我们将具体比较哪种增强剂(替代的或功能性的阳性强化)在PR时间表下产生更多的反应，这将作为增强剂效力的衡量标准。在实验2中，我们将进行一项治疗评估，参与者将根据一段时间内破坏性行为的缺失而获得替代或功能性正强化。假设在PR计划下与更多响应相关的增强剂(即高效力增强剂)也将与问题行为的更大减少相关，无论它是功能性增强剂还是替代增强剂。这项研究应该通过提供一种确定有效干预的替代方法来扩展我们在治疗破坏性行为方面的知识基础，而不需要进行功能分析。破坏性行为(例如，自残、攻击)对包括自闭症在内的高达50%的发育障碍患者的社会和教育方面产生了负面影响。这些行为可以通过提供维持这些行为的刺激或高度偏好的刺激(例如玩具)来治疗。目前的研究将比较个人将完成多少工作(在累进比率[PR]强化时间表下)，以便获得产生问题行为的两种刺激，而不是高度偏好的刺激。然后，这两种刺激将在不同的治疗方法中进行比较，以减少破坏性行为的发生。预计在公关计划下，与更多工作完成相关的刺激也将与治疗期间破坏性行为的更大减少相关。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Efficacy of Various Positive Reinforcers in the Treatment of Destructive Behavior Destructive behavior (e.g., self-injury, aggression) may impede the development of many individuals with disabilities. These behaviors may occur for many reasons however, for most individuals problem behaviors are controlled by social stimuli (e.g., access to attention, escape from aversive activities). One effective treatment for these behaviors is to no longer deliver the reinforcer (i.e., extinction) or to deliver the reinforcer contingent upon some alternative response (e.g., appropriate communication). Recent research has suggested that providing access to highly preferred alternative reinforcers (i.e., those that do not maintain problem behavior) is also an effective procedure for decreasing problem behavior. For example, an individual who engages in attention-maintained aggression might receive non-contingent access to a preferred toy rather than attention. Alternative reinforcers are typically determined using one of several different preference assessment procedures. However, recent research has suggested that existing preference assessments may not be the optimal method for identifying stimuli to be incorporated into behavioral interventions. Also, few investigations have examined the relative effectiveness of using alternative versus functional reinforcers in the treatment of destructive behavior. In this investigation, individuals with developmental disabilities will select their preferred items through a commonly used preference assessment. Next, a functional analysis will be conducted to identify the reinforcer that maintains destructive behavior (i.e., social positive reinforcement). In Experiment 1, we will compare the alternative reinforcer to the functional positive reinforcer by exposing both to progressive ratio (PR) schedules of reinforcement in which the number of responses required to access either reinforcer will increase progressively within the course of each session, such that the total response requirement increases as the session progressed. We will specifically compare which reinforcer (alternative or functional positive reinforcement) results in more responding under the PR schedules, which will serve as a measure of reinforcer potency. In Experiment 2, we will conduct a treatment evaluation in which the participants will receive access to either the alternative or the functional positive reinforcer contingent upon the omission of destructive behavior for a period of time. It is hypothesized that the reinforcer that is associated with more responding under the PR schedules (i.e., the high potency reinforcer) will also be associated with a greater reduction in problem behavior regardless of whether it was the functional or the alternative reinforcer. This research should extend our knowledge base in the treatment of destructive behavior by providing an alternative method of identifying effective interventions without necessitating a functional analysis. Destructive behavior (e.g., self-injury, aggression) negatively impact social and educational aspects of the lives of up to 50% of individuals with developmental disabilities including autism. These behaviors can be treated by delivering access to stimuli that maintain these behaviors or stimuli that are highly preferred (e.g., toys). The current study will compare how much work individuals will complete (under progressive ratio [PR] schedules of reinforcement) in order to access both those stimuli that produce their problem behavior as opposed to highly preferred stimuli. These two stimuli will then be compared within distinct treatments to reduce the occurrence of destructive behavior. It is anticipated that the stimulus associated with more work completion under the PR schedules will also be associated with a greater reduction in destructive behavior during treatment.