Efficacy of Various Positive Reinforcers in the Treatment of Destructive Behavior

描述（由申请人提供）：各种正强化物在治疗破坏性行为中的效果破坏性行为（如自残、攻击）可能阻碍许多残疾人的发展。这些行为的发生可能有很多原因，但对大多数个体来说，问题行为是由社会刺激控制的（例如，获得注意，逃避厌恶活动）。对这些行为的一种有效治疗是不再提供强化物（即，灭绝）或根据某些替代反应（例如，适当的沟通）提供强化物。最近的研究表明，提供高度优选的替代强化物（即那些不维持问题行为的强化物）也是减少问题行为的有效方法。例如，一个参与注意力维持攻击的个体可能会获得非偶然的访问首选玩具的机会，而不是注意力。替代强化物通常使用几种不同的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将刺激纳入行为干预的最佳方法。此外，很少有研究检查了在治疗破坏性行为中使用替代强化物与功能强化物的相对有效性。在这项调查中，发育障碍的个体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的强化因素（即社会正强化）。在实验1中，我们将通过暴露于递进比例（PR）强化计划来比较备选强化和功能性正强化，其中在每次会话过程中，访问任何一个强化所需的反应数量将逐步增加，因此总反应需求随着会话的进行而增加。我们将特别比较哪种强化物（替代或功能性正强化）在PR时间表下产生更多的反应，这将作为强化物效力的衡量标准。在实验2中，我们将进行一项治疗评估，参与者将在一段时间内不采取破坏性行为的情况下获得选择性或功能性正强化。假设在PR计划下与更多反应相关的强化物（即高效强化物）也将与问题行为的更大减少相关，无论它是功能性强化物还是替代强化物。这项研究提供了一种识别有效干预措施的替代方法，而无需功能分析，从而扩展了我们在治疗破坏性行为方面的知识基础。破坏性行为（如自残、攻击）对多达50%的发育障碍（包括自闭症）患者的社会和教育生活产生负面影响。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体将完成多少工作（在递进比强化计划下），以同时获得那些产生问题行为的刺激和高度偏好的刺激。然后将这两种刺激在不同的治疗中进行比较，以减少破坏性行为的发生。预计在PR计划下，与更多的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.