In light of the aforementioned findings, the present investigation sought to evaluate whether the use of MS would increase the effectiveness of RIRD. Thus, previous literature on MS and noncontingent reinforcement highlights the potential benefits of supplementing a response-blocking procedure with MS. Following the addition of response blocking to MS for one participant, rates of stereotypy further decreased and appropriate manipulation of the matched toys increased. Results indicated that matched toys alone decreased stereotypy for one of the two participants.
#Sound redirector plus
Results indicated a greater reduction in the target behaviors for most participants when they were given continuous and noncontingent access to items that were hypothesized to match the target behavior's sensory consequences.įisher, Lindauer, Alterson, and Thompson (1998) also evaluated the effects of MS and unmatched stimulation on stereotypic object breaking plus tapping. Participants received continuous access to items that produced either the same (matched) or different (unmatched) forms of stimulation. (1998, 2000) investigated the effects of MS on pica, saliva manipulation, hand mouthing, jumping, and climbing, which were all maintained by automatic reinforcement. The addition of these stimuli (matched stimulation) to a treatment with RIRD may be a more efficient approach than RIRD alone, because decreasing the MO for the products of stereotypy may result in fewer implementations of RIRD. This limitation may be circumvented by potentially decreasing the motivating operation (MO) for engaging in stereotypy through the presentation of stimuli that produce the same hypothesized sensory consequence as the problem behavior ( Piazza, Adelinis, Hanley, Goh, & Delia, 2000 Piazza et al., 1998). Results indicated that reductions in vocal stereotypy followed a pattern of responding indicative of positive punishment.īecause vocal stereotypy may occur quite frequently, a high number of RIRD implementations may be required to achieve considerable reductions in behavior, which may prevent clinicians from adopting the procedure ( Miguel et al., 2009). (2011) sought to isolate the mechanism that is responsible for the effects of RIRD by implementing a treatment integrity fading procedure modeled after Lerman and Iwata (1996) and Smith, Russo, and Le (1999). Results showed significant reductions in vocal stereotypy and provided further evidence for the efficacy of RIRD in school settings. In a more applied extension, Liu-Gitz and Banda (2010) evaluated teacher-implemented RIRD in a natural classroom setting. Results showed a decrease in vocal stereotypy for all four participants and an increase in the frequency of appropriate vocalizations for three of four participants. During RIRD, the experimenter interrupted the participants' vocal stereotypy and then redirected them to emit appropriate vocalizations such as answering social questions. (2007) evaluated RIRD with four participants who displayed automatically reinforced vocal stereotypy.
Two of the recently evaluated treatments are response interruption and redirection (RIRD e.g., Ahearn, Clark, MacDonald, & Chung, 2007 Ahrens, Lerman, Kodak, Worsdell, & Keegan, 2011 Duffy-Cassella, Sidener, Sidener, & Progar, 2011 Liu-Gitz & Banda, 2010 Miguel, Clark, Tereshko, & Ahearn, 2009) and noncontingent access to matched stimulation (MS e.g., Lanovaz, Fletcher, & Rapp, 2009 Rapp, 2007 Taylor, Hoch, & Weissman, 2005).Īhearn et al. Despite these challenges, interventions have emerged to treat automatically reinforced stereotypy. Stereotypic behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement may be more difficult to treat because one does not have access to the exact source of reinforcement ( Vollmer, 1994). That is, it produces automatic reinforcement.
(1987) suggested that stereotypical responding functions to provide sensory input to an individual. Vocal stereotypy specifically may compete with more adaptive forms of communication (e.g., mands) and also create disruptions for other people in the social environment (e.g., Athens, Vollmer, Sloman, & St.
Stereotypy is typically targeted for reduction given that it may interfere with learning, compete with more functional responses, and be socially stigmatizing (e.g., Durand & Carr, 1987 Koegel & Covert, 1972 Matson, Kiely, & Bamburg, 1997 Repp & Barton, 1980). Although stereotypy is not displayed exclusively by individuals with disabilities, an increased rate can be observed in this population, especially in those diagnosed with autism ( American Psychiatric Association, 2005 Lewis & Bodfish, 1998 Repp & Barton, 1980). The term stereotypy is often used to classify either motor or vocal repetitive behavior that does not appear to serve an adaptive function ( Lovaas, Newsom, & Hickman, 1987).
0 kommentar(er)
