Multiple schedule assessment of competing items: effect on motivating operations.

Rapp (2007), suggested that, when treating automatically-reinforced behavi or using competing stimuli, whether a stimulus is matched or unmatched is a predictor of whether an A O (for matched stimuli) or EO (for unmatched stimuli) effect will be obtained followi ng response competition. Two young males, with an autism spectrum disorder, who engaged in high leve ls of stereotypic behavior maintained by automatically reinforcement parti ci ted. The effects of competing stimuli on levels of stereotypy were assessed using a three-com ponent multiple schedule (i.e., BL access to stimuli BL). During the assessment, the com p ting item was either a matched or unmatched stimulus identified using a competing items asse s ment (Piazza et al., 1998; Piazza, Adelinis, Hanley, Goh, &Delia, 2000. For both participants, providing acce ss to the matched stimuli suggested no clear pattern of either establishing or a bolishing effect. However, for unmatched stimuli the results suggested a clear pattern of a pote ntial abolishing effect for both participants. Multiple Schedule Assessment of Competing Items: Effect on Motivating Operat ions Some individuals with developmental disabilities engage in problem behavior that is maintained by automatic reinforcement. The term automatic reinforcem ent has been used to describe reinforcement that is produced independent of the social environment (Vaugha n & Michael, 1982). Piazza et al. (2000) proposed that automatically reinforced aberra nt h vior becomes more probable when levels of environmental stimulation are inadequate. Thus , one potential treatment for automatically reinforced problem behavior is provide nonc o ti gent access to preferred stimuli (e.g., Shore, Iwata, DeLeon, Kahng, & Smith, 1997). Typi cally, pretreatment preferences assessments are conducted to identify items f or use in noncontingent reinforcement programs (e.g., Vollmer, Marcus & LeBlanc, 1994); these pref rred items may or may not matched the purported reinforcer. A matched stimulus appears to provide the sa me or similar sensory consequence as the automatically maintained problem behavior . An unmatched stimulus provides a sensory consequence but it is neither the same, nor similar t o the sensory consequence of the automatically maintained problem behavior (Piazza et al. 1998, 2000). Previous studies (Favell. McGimsey, & Schell, 1982; Fisher, Lindauer, Alter son, Thompson, 1998) found that matched stimuli produced a greater reduction in the persistence of problem behavior than unmatched stimuli. However; functional analyses were not conducted prior to treatment to assess if the problem behavior was automatically reinforced. Piazza et al. (1998, 2000) furthered the research on the treatment of automatical ly maintained problem behavior by developing a competing items assessment to identi fy stimuli that will effectively reduce the persistence of the problem behavior for both m atched and unmatched stimuli, an to identify highly preferred stimuli to use in subsequent eval uation. A functional analysis (Iwata et al. 1984/1992) was conducted prior to conducting the competi ng items assessment to rule out socially mediated reinforcement. The compet ing items assessment consisted of identifying matched and unmatched stimuli for a subsequent assessm ent. Multiple stimuli was used to evaluate the effects of matched and unmatched stimuli rate of pr oblem behavior. All participants’ matched stimuli were associated with lower l evels of automatically maintained problem behavior, which supported and extended previous research. Piazza et al . (1998, 2000) stated that matched stimuli may function as establishing operation becaus e matched stimuli provide the same (or similar) sensory consequence as the automaticall y maintained problem behavior. Thus, motivation to obtain the reinforcement produced by the problem behavior may be reduced when an individual is engaged with matched stimuli. With an unmatched stimulus, the establishing operation continues to be present because the item do s not provide the same sensory consequence as the automatically maintained probl m behavior. Laraway, Snycerski, Michael and Poling (2003) later clarified the term es tablishing operation. As any event that increases the effectiveness of a given consequence, while an abolishing operation refers to any event that decreases the effectiveness of a g iven consequence. Rapp (2006) agreed with Piazza et al. (2000) assertions. Rapp hypothesized that a functionally-matched intervention may serve as an abolishing operation for stim ulation generated by the problem behavior whereas an unmatched intervention may serve as an establi shing operation for the problem behavior. If the intervention is functionally matched, there s hould be a decrease or unchanged level of problem behavior relative to baseline levels. A mult iple schedule assessment was conducted with all participants (Rapp 2006, 2007). The results confirm ed Rapp’s hypothesis that non-contingent access to matched competing items would reduc e th motivation for engaging in problem behavior. A second assessment was completed with an unmatched stimulus (Rapp 2007). The results also confirmed the hypothesis that noncontingent access to an unmatched competing item will increase the motivation for engagi ng in problem behavior. However, there are some studies that have not conformed to Rapp’s (2007) hypothesis. Although providing noncontingent access to competing stimuli may lead to shortterm reductions in automatically-maintained problem behavior, it is not clear what long-term effects this intervention may have on the persistence of behavior over time. Ahea rn, Clark, Gardenier, Chung and Dube (2003) raised concerns about the long term effects their trea men had on automatically maintained problem behavior. A multiple schedule assessment wa s conducted for three participants. Two sequences were conducted and reversed. A be havior momentum sequence which consisted for four components: baseline, VT exposures, test and baseline. In baseline no preferred stimulus was available. In the VT exposure only the first preferred stimulus was available and the test condition the second preferred stim ulus was available. The control sequence consisted of four components: baseline, baseline, tes t, and baseline. Only on sequence was conducted on a single day. In all sequences the first c omponent is compared to the fourth components. In two of the participants the fourth component showed higher levels of behavior than the first component. There is a potential pattern of a n establishing effect for both participants. The third participant there was neither a potentia l establishing or abolishing effect once the treatment was removed because four of the sequenc es th fourth component showed lower levels of behavior than the first and the other four components the fourth component was higher than the first component. It should be noted that the third participant the stimuli selected did not complete as well as it did for the two pre vi us participants. The results of previous research on using matched stimuli to reduce automatica lly maintained behavior have been mixed. The purpose of this study is to present a new ass essment to compare automatically maintained problem behavior during, and immediately fol lowing either a matched or unmatched treatment components. Given the inconsistent findings in the res earch describe above, we want to further evaluate the effects of matched and unmatche d stimuli on automatically maintained problem behavior. General Method Participants The participants were two individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who w ere enrolled in a residential program and pre-school program at the New England Center f or Children, Inc. (NECC). They had been referred as a result of their high leve ls of automatically maintained problem behavior which interfered with participation in their educationa l g als. Fin was 15-years-old male who communicated using a speech generating device and hi s expressive language was limited to using single words (e.g. , no, yes, olives). He exhibit d frequent motor stereotypy (body rocking and nonfunctional figure moments). Tom was a 5-year-old ma le who exhibited frequent vocal stereotypy that included nonfunctional speech and nonfunctional no ses. Experiment 1: Competing Items Assessment Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement (IOA) Competing items sessions were videotaped and scored by a trained graduate st udent. Data on automatically maintained problem behavior and item engagement were m easured using a 10-s momentary time sample procedure. During each 10-s interval the experim nt s recorded whether or not item engagement occurred, and the occurrence or non-occurrence of the probl em behavior. A second observer recorded data during least 33% of all sessions for each pa ticipant and IOA was calculated. An agreement was recorded when of both recorded observe rs either the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the problem behavior; a disagreement was scored when one observer recorded the occurrence of the behavior and the other observer recorde d the nonoccurrence of the behavior. The number of intervals with agreement were divided by t he number of intervals with agreement plus disagreements and multiplied by 100%. For Fin, t he mean IOA for engagement was 86% (range, 66% 100%) and 93% (range, 44% 100%) for problem behavior mean. For Tom, the mean IOA for engagement was 99% (range, 96% 100%) and 95% (range, 86% 100%) for problem behavior. Procedure and Design A functional analysis on motor stereotypy for Fin and vocal stereotypy for Tom were conducted prior to the competing items assessment. The functional analysis wa s conducted to show that the function of the problem behavior was not socially mediated. Procedures we re similar to those reported by Iwata et al. (1982/1994) but the order of the conditions were modified using the procedures described by Rosco