ESCAPE BEHAVIOR McComas Et Al. 2000

7/30/2019 ESCAPE BEHAVIOR McComas Et Al. 2000

1/15

479

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2000, 33, 479493 NUMBER 4 (WINTER 2000)

ESCAPE BEHAVIOR DURING ACADEMIC TASKS:A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF IDIOSYNCRATIC

ESTABLISHING OPERATIONS

JENNIFER MCCOMASTHE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

AND

HANNAH HOCH, DEBRA PAONE, AND DAPHNA EL-ROYQUEENS COLLEGE AND THE

GRADUATE SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY CENTER/CUNY

The presence or absence of idiosyncratic stimuli has been demonstrated to predictablyalter the occurrence of problem behavior. By specifying stimuli related to negativelyreinforced behavior during academic tasks, it may be possible to identify methods ofinstruction that decrease the occurrence of problem behavior. The current study used afour-step procedure that involved a functional analysis, descriptive assessment, establishing

operations (EO) analysis, and follow-up evaluation (a) to identify the operant functionof destructive behavior and (b) to evaluate the effects of idiosyncratic features of academictask demands and related methods of instruction on the occurrence of negatively rein-forced destructive behavior of 3 boys with developmental disabilities and autism in aclassroom setting. The data suggest that the four-step procedure was effective in identi-fying methods of instruction that decreased the likelihood of destructive behavior withoutdisrupting the maintaining contingencies for destructive behavior. Results are discussedin terms of establishing operations for negatively reinforced destructive behavior duringacademic tasks and related methods of instruction in classroom settings.

DESCRIPTORS: destructive behavior, establishing operations, functional analysis,academic tasks, negative reinforcement

Antecedent interventions can be highly ef-

fective means of treating problem behaviorfollowing a functional analysis (Horner, Day,& Day, 1997; Smith, Iwata, Goh, & Shore,1995). There are at least two advantages tothe use of antecedent procedures for reduc-ing destructive behavior. First, by manipu-lating antecedent variables related to de-structive behavior, it is possible to set theoccasion for desirable rather than undesir-able behavior. Second, by intervening at theantecedent level, it may be possible to avoidthe use of extinction or punishment, thus

We express our appreciation to the participants andtheir instructional staff for their participation and in-valuable contribution.

Correspondence should be addressed to Jennifer J.McComas, Department of Educational Psychology,224 Burton Hall, 178 Pillsbury Dr. S.E., Minneapolis,Minnesota 55455.

avoiding more intrusive interventions that

frequently have undesirable side effects (Goh& Iwata, 1994; Lerman, Iwata, & Wallace,1999).

The influence that antecedent interven-tions have on behavior is derived from theirrelationship with reinforcement (Halle &Spradlin, 1993). One way that antecedentvariables affect responding is by altering thevalue of available reinforcement. In the pres-ence of a behaviorconsequence contingen-cy, the probability of a response may be in-creased or decreased by establishing opera-tions (EOs) that momentarily alter the re-inforcing effectiveness of that consequence(Michael, 1982). For example, negatively re-inforced destructive behavior may be lesslikely to occur during tasks that can be com-pleted easily or successfully than during


2/15

480 JENNIFER MCCOMAS et al.

those that cannot be completed with a highlevel of accuracy or success (e.g., Cameron,

Ainsleigh, & Bird, 1992).Academic task demands can take many

forms, including but not limited to drill-type repetitive tasks, extremely easy tasks, orextremely difficult tasks. For any given in-dividual, the presentation of a particulartype of academic task can increase the prob-ability of destructive behavior that has beenpreviously negatively reinforced through thetermination of such tasks (Michael, 1993).However, these effects are highly idiosyn-cratic (e.g., Carr, Yarbrough, & Langdon,1997). For example, escape-maintained de-structive behavior may be likely to occur for

one individual given an extremely difficulttask, whereas for another individual, escape-maintained destructive behavior may be like-ly to occur given an extremely easy task. Forboth of these individuals, a change in in-structional methods or curriculum might di-minish the reinforcing effects of escape to apoint at which undesirable escape behavioris not evoked (Smith & Iwata, 1997). Thus,systematic specification of the effects of idi-osyncratic properties of academic task de-mands and methods of instruction for an in-

dividual might lead to identification of ap-propriate antecedent-based interventionsthat decrease the likelihood of the occur-rence of negatively reinforced behavior.

This investigation was conducted with 3boys with developmental disabilities and au-tism (a) to identify the behavioral functionof destructive behavior and (b) to evaluatethe effects of idiosyncratic features of aca-demic task demands and related methods ofinstruction on the occurrence of negativelyreinforced destructive behavior.

METHOD

Participants and Setting

Three boys who had been diagnosed withdevelopmental disabilities and autism partic-

ipated in this investigation. All participantsattended a small private school for children

with autism and had been referred for eval-uation of severe destructive behavior at

school. All 3 participants had limited ex-pressive language vocabularies and rarely ini-tiated verbal interactions. Eli was 8 years old,typically communicated using four- to five-

word sentences, and followed three-step di-rections. At the time of the investigation, he

was working on first-grade math tasks andtypically completed academic tasks in one-to-one or small-group instruction. Charlie

was 8 years old, typically communicated us-ing four- to five-word sentences, and fol-lowed two-step directions. He was also

working on first-grade academic tasks andtypically completed academic tasks in one-to-one or small-group instruction. Ben was9 years old, typically communicated usingfive- to seven-word sentences, and followedthree-step directions. He was working onfirst- and second-grade academic tasks andcompleted a large proportion of his academ-ic tasks during independent seat-work time.Classroom-based behavior management pro-cedures for Bens aggression involved a 60-stime-out.

All sessions were conducted by an instruc-tor who was affiliated with the school and

who was trained in applied behavior analy-sis. For each participant, all sessions wereconducted by the same instructor until fol-low-up, when additional instructors were in-volved. Analyses were conducted in the par-ticipants classrooms with the exception ofCharlies functional analysis and the initialsessions of the EO analyses for Eli and Char-lie, which were conducted in a campus-based laboratory. The classroom was fullyequipped with academic task materials, lei-sure activities, and exercise equipment. Ap-proximately six students and four teachers

were present in the classrooms. The labora-tory consisted of a room (2.5 m square) witha table, two chairs, and a one-way mirror.


3/15

481ESTABLISHING OPERATIONS IN ACADEMIC TASKS

Sessions in both settings were conducted atthe table.

Tasks and Materials

Leisure materials used during the func-tional analyses included cars, trucks, com-puter games, and musical instruments. Tasks

were suggested by the teachers because theywere listed for completion in each partici-pants individualized education plan butseemed to pose problems in class. Elis tasksduring both the functional analysis and theEO analysis consisted of math problems thathe did not independently complete with80% or better accuracy. These included sin-gle-digit addition problems that summed to

less than 20. The novel tasks used in follow-up sessions with Eli consisted of worksheetswith number sequences that required him tofill in the missing numbers (e.g., 5, , ,20). During the 1-year follow-up probes,two-digit addition problems that summed toless than 30 were used. Charlies and Benstasks were those that they were able to com-plete independently with 80% or better ac-curacy and included sorting tasks, readingbooks, labeling pictures, a time-telling task,and addition and spelling worksheets.

During Elis EO analysis, he was given aset of checkers that served as a visual repre-sentation of the numbers he was adding.During 1-month follow-up sessions withnovel number-sequencing tasks, he used anumber line; during the 1-year follow-upprobes, he used a calculator. During the EOanalysis, Charlies choice board was a pieceof paper with the list of assigned tasks print-ed on it. In Charlies 1-year follow-upprobes, the choice board was a Velcroboard with printed names of assigned tasks.

During Bens EO analysis, a written list oftasks to be completed was used in all tasksessions.

Target Behavior

Destructive behavior was the primary de-pendent variable for all 3 participants. Elis

destructive behavior was shirt biting, definedas placing part of his shirt between his topand bottom teeth and closing his teeth onhis shirt. Charlies destructive behavior was

chin pressing, which was defined as pushingor pressing his chin against his arm oragainst any part of another persons body.Bens destructive behavior was aggression,consisting of hitting and pinching. The sec-ond dependent variable measured for all par-ticipants was compliance with task demands,

which was defined as writing, counting, orotherwise visibly working towards comple-tion of a task. In addition, data were col-lected on Charlies choice-making responses,defined as reaching toward, pointing to, or

verbally naming one of the tasks. Also, forEli, data on accurate problem completion

were recorded to document his task perfor-mance. These additional data are not pre-sented graphically and are available from thefirst author upon request.

Independent Variables

Procedural fidelity data were collected forall primary independent variables. Resultsindicated that all procedures were conducted

with acceptable fidelity. Specific data are

available from the first author upon request.

Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement

Experimental sessions were 10 min for Eliand Charlie and 15 min for Ben. Occasion-ally, EO analysis sessions for Charlie lasted

just over 9 min or just under 11 min. Nosessions were shorter than 9 min or longerthan 11 min, and examination of the rawdata indicated that these variations occurredirrespective of experimental condition. In allcases, data were collected and calculated forthe entire session. Data on destructive be-havior were collected on a 10-s count-with-in-interval system. Elis data were expressedas percentage of 10-s intervals, and data forCharlie and Ben were expressed as numberof responses per minute. For each session


4/15


with Eli, the number of problems completedaccurately was divided by 10 (the session du-ration in minutes) to indicate the number ofresponses per minute of accurate problem

completion (data are available from the firstauthor upon request). Data on all other de-pendent and independent variables were re-corded with a 10-s partial-interval recordingprocedure.

A second independent observer recordeddata for purposes of determining interob-server agreement. Agreement data were col-lected during at least 44% of the sessions foreach participant and were calculated sepa-rately for each dependent and independentvariable. Agreement was defined as an inter-

val in which both observers recorded the oc-currence or nonoccurrence of an event. Thenumber of intervals with agreement was di-vided by the number of intervals with agree-ment plus the number of intervals with dis-agreement, then multiplied by 100%. Theoverall mean interobserver agreement acrossdependent and independent variables andparticipants was 98% (range, 87% to100%).

Design

A multielement design was used to com-pare the effects of free play, contingent at-tention, contingent escape, and contingentaccess to toys on destructive behavior duringa functional analysis with Eli. A brief mul-tielement design was used with Charlie andBen to identify the reinforcer for destructivebehavior. During the EO analyses, multiel-ement designs were used to evaluate the ef-fects of the presence and absence of specifiedproperties of the tasks for each individualparticipant.

Procedure

A four-step procedure was used (a) toidentify the behavioral function of the par-ticipants destructive behavior; (b) to collectdescriptive information and generate hy-

potheses regarding the EOs for their behav-ior and relevant instructional methods; (c)to evaluate the effects of the presence versusabsence of specified methods of instruction

on their destructive behavior and compli-ance; and (d) to assess their performance infollow-up sessions. Tasks, methods of in-struction, and duration of reinforcement

were individually selected based on ongoinginstructional practices reported and observedfor each participant. Thus, minor proceduralvariations occurred across participants.

Functional analysis. Experimental analyseswere conducted with each participant usingprocedures similar to those described byIwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman(1982/1994) and Northup et al. (1994) toidentify the maintaining contingencies fordestructive behavior. Four analogue condi-tions were conducted with Eli: free play(control), escape, attention, and tangible.Sessions were presented in a random se-quence in a multielement design, and at leastfour sessions of each condition were con-ducted. For Charlie and Ben, three condi-tions were alternated: free play, escape, andattention. During the free-play condition, all

participants had unlimited access to leisurematerials and teacher attention, and they

were not required to perform any academictasks. During the escape condition, academ-ic responses were required, and contingenton every destructive response, the responserequirements were terminated for 20 s (60 sfor Ben). A general praise statement was pro-vided for compliance. During the attentioncondition, the participants had access to lei-sure materials, but access to teacher atten-tion was restricted. Teacher attention waspresented for 20 s (60 s for Ben) contingenton each occurrence of destructive behavior.During the tangible condition, the partici-pants had unlimited access to teacher atten-tion but limited access to tangible items. Ac-cess to tangible items was restricted and only


5/15


allowed for 20 s (60 s for Ben) contingenton each occurrence of destructive behavior.

The results for all 3 participants indicatedthat destructive behavior was maintained by

negative reinforcement in the form of escapefrom task demands.Descriptive assessment and hypothesis gen-

eration. Following the functional analyses,informal direct observations were conductedduring daily academic tasks in the partici-pants classrooms, and narrative descriptionsof antecedent-behavior-consequence se-quences were recorded. In addition, an in-formal interview was conducted with theteachers and parents of the participants toidentify specific types of demand situations

in which destructive behavior did and didnot typically occur. The information collect-ed in the narrative observations and inter-views was used to develop hypotheses aboutthe EOs for destructive behavior and meth-ods of instruction that could be changed todecrease the likelihood of escape-maintaineddestructive behavior.

The results of the interview and direct ob-servation of Eli suggested that destructivebehavior occurred most frequently when he

was required to complete a novel or difficult

task (defined as one that he could not com-plete independently with 80% or better ac-curacy). Based on this information, an in-structional strategy was identified to aid Elito complete math problems accurately.

The results of the interview and direct ob-servation of Charlie suggested that destruc-tive behavior occurred least often when he

was given a choice regarding the sequence ofhis activities. Based on this information, wehypothesized that giving him control overthe sequence of tasks might lead to decreasesin destructive behavior.

The results of the interview and direct ob-servation of Ben suggested that aggression

was more likely to occur when Ben wasasked to complete the same task, or set ofacademic tasks, repeatedly. The practice of

re-presenting tasks was typical in Bens class-room, where students who failed to com-plete a worksheet with 100% accuracy wererequired to complete it again until they mas-

tered it with 100% accuracy. Ben typicallyperformed tasks with 90% accuracy, butwas frequently required to repeat a work-sheet on which he completed one or twoitems incorrectly. Based on this information,

we hypothesized that providing task de-mands that were not identical to those Benhad already completed would lead to de-creases in aggression.

EO analysis. The antecedents and conse-quences arranged for each participants be-havior are depicted in Table 1. The same

tasks that were used in the functional anal-ysis were used in the EO analysis. Through-out all sessions for all 3 participants, eachoccurrence of destructive behavior produced20 s (60 s for Ben) of escape from task de-mands. Task compliance resulted in a gen-eral praise statement on a variable-ratio (VR)5 (VR 15 for Ben) schedule. This schedule

was selected because it was similar to theschedule observed during the descriptive as-sessment phase.

For Eli, the EO analysis consisted of a

comparison of the effects of the presenceversus the absence of an instructional strat-egy on destructive and compliant behavior.In both conditions, each occurrence of Elisdestructive behavior produced 20-s escapefrom task demands.

During instructional strategy sessions, apile of checkers was available on the tablefor Eli to use in completing his math tasks.The instructor gave him math worksheets ofaddition problems and said, Do your

work. A three-step prompt hierarchy wasused, with 10 s between prompts. If after 10s Eli did not begin the task, the instructorused a verbal prompt combined with a ges-tural prompt (e.g., 6 plus 5 equals what?and pointed to the worksheet). If after 10 sEli did not begin the task, the instructor ges-


6/15


Table 1

ParticipantHypothesized

EOMethod ofInstruction

EO AnalysisCondition Antecedents Behavior Consequence

Eli Difficult tasks Instructionalstrategy

Instructionalstrategy

Do yourwork,worksheets,strategy(manipula-tives, num-ber line, orcalculator)

Destructivebehavior

Compliance

FR 1 escape

VR 5 praise

No instruc-tional strat-egy

Do yourwork,worksheets

Destructivebehavior

Compliance

FR 1 escape

VR 5 praise

Charlie Adult-deter-mined tasksequences

Choice of se-quence oftasks

Choice of tasksequence

Do yourwork,worksheetschoiceboard

Destructivebehavior

Compliance

FR 1 escape

VR 5 praise

No choice oftask se-quence

Do yourwork,worksheets

Destructivebehavior

Compliance

FR 1 escape

VR 5 praise

Ben Repetition of tasks

Nonrepeatedtasks

Nonrepeatedtasks

Do yourwork, non-repeated

worksheets

Destructivebehavior

Compliance

FR 1 escape

VR 15 praise

Repeated tasks Do yourwork,worksheetscompletedearlier in

work ses-

sion

Destructivebehavior

Compliance

FR 1 escape

VR 15 praise

tured to the checkers. If Eli still did not be-gin the task, physical assistance was providedto complete the addition problem using thecheckers (e.g., the instructor counted out 6checkers, then 5 checkers, then added themup to 11). The same procedure was used

with the number line and calculator duringfollow-up probes.

During the no-instructional-strategy ses-sions, the procedures were identical to theinstructional strategy condition, except thatno checkers were available. If Eli did not re-spond after the instructor provided the ver-bal prompt combined with the gesturalprompt, the instructor used a physical

prompt, in the form of hand-over-hand as-sistance, to complete the problem.

For Charlie, the EO analysis consisted ofa comparison of the effects of the presenceversus absence of choice of sequence of taskson destructive and compliant behavior. Inboth conditions, the same pool of 10 tasks(including math, spelling, reading, time-tell-ing, money skills, and writing worksheets,sequencing and sorting tasks, and labelingbody parts and emotions) was used, and nosession was terminated until Charlie com-pleted all 10 tasks. In both conditions, eachoccurrence of destructive behavior produced20-s escape from task demands.


7/15


During sequence choice sessions, the in-structor presented Charlie with a board con-taining a list of his tasks. The instructor toldhim that he had to do all of his work, but

he could choose the order in which to do it.The instructor first read through the listwith Charlie, then told him to choose anactivity. If he pointed to a task on the listor said the name of a task within 10 s, he

was directed to complete the task. If he didnot choose a task within 10 s, the teacherheld up two activities and told him tochoose one. After Charlie chose a task, theinstructor said, Do your work. A three-step prompt hierarchy was used, with 10 sbetween prompts. When Charlie completed

a task, the instructor placed the materials outof sight, said, All done with that task, anddirected him to cross it off the list. The in-structor repeated these steps until all 10tasks were complete.

The procedures used in the no-sequence-choice condition were identical to those usedin the choice conditions except that nochoice board was present and no choices oftask sequence were offered. Instead, theteacher randomly selected tasks from thesame pool of 10 tasks and presented them

to Charlie one after the other without offer-ing any choice. The session ended after all10 tasks were complete.

Bens EO analysis consisted of a compar-ison of the presence versus absence of re-peated tasks on destructive and compliantbehavior. In all sessions, Ben was required tocomplete a set of 15 worksheets (includingspelling, reading comprehension, addition,

writing, and time-telling tasks). In both con-ditions, the consequence for each instance ofaggression was 60-s escape from task de-mands.

During no-repeated-tasks sessions, Benwas not required to repeat any worksheetsthat he had previously completed during the90-min independent work period. Duringall sessions, a list of tasks to be completed

was written on the blackboard. Bens instruc-tor said, Do your work, and directed Bento complete the list of tasks. If Ben did notbegin to work within 10 s, the instructor

used a three-step prompt hierarchy to directhim to complete the tasks.The procedures for the repeated tasks

condition were identical to those used in theno-repeated-tasks condition, except that thelist of tasks that Ben was required to com-plete was identical to those he had complet-ed in the previous work period.

Follow-up. Follow-up sessions were con-ducted to evaluate the effects over time andunder different conditions. Procedures wereidentical to those used in the condition with

the lower occurrence of destructive behaviorduring the EO analysis, with one and twoprobes of the comparison condition for Eliand Charlie, respectively. Probes with novelpeople, who consisted of different classroominstructors, were conducted with all 3 par-ticipants. For Eli and Charlie, probes wereconducted in a novel setting (a differentclassroom), and for Eli, novel materials (anumber line) and a different math task(number sequencing) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Elis functional analysis data are displayedin the top panel of Figure 1. Destructive be-havior occurred almost exclusively during es-cape sessions, suggesting that it was main-tained by negative reinforcement in the formof escape from academic tasks. The resultsof the EO analysis and follow-up for de-structive behavior are shown in the middlepanel of Figure 1. Virtually no negatively re-inforced destructive behavior occurred whenthe instructional strategy was present, butranged from 20% to 40% of the intervals

when it was absent. During follow-up ses-sions (beginning with Session 5), the effectsof the instructional strategy were examinedin a novel setting, with a novel person, and


8/15


Figure 1. Percentage of intervals with shirt biting for Eli in the functional analysis (top panel) and EOanalysis and follow-up (middle panel). Percentage of intervals with compliance is depicted in the bottom panel.Follow-up sessions begin in Session 5. The single carat indicates probe in novel setting, the double carat indicatesprobe with novel instructor, and the triple carat indicates probe with novel materials.


9/15


with novel tasks 1 month and 1 year afterthe initial sessions of the EO analysis. Whenan instructional strategy was available, de-structive behavior did not occur in seven of

the ten sessions and occurred in less than7% of the intervals in each of the remainingthree sessions. However, when the instruc-tional strategy was unavailable in Sessions 8and 12, destructive behavior increased tolevels similar to those exhibited in the func-tional analysis and EO analysis when an in-structional strategy was not available.

The data for Elis compliance (bottompanel) show similar results; he demonstratedgreater compliance when the instructionalstrategy was available (M 81%) than

when it was not (M 34%). Finally, dataon accuracy and rate of accurate problemcompletion indicated that without the in-structional strategy, Eli consistently com-pleted the tasks with less than 70% accuracy

with an average of 0.125 problems per mi-nute. By contrast, with the instructionalstrategy, he consistently completed the sametasks with greater than 80% accuracy withan average of 2.75 problems per minute.

The results of Charlies analyses are dis-played in Figure 2. The results of the brief

functional analysis (top panel) suggestedthat his destructive behavior was main-tained by negative reinforcement in theform of escape from academic tasks. De-structive behavior occurred at least 0.4times per minute in the escape sessions,

whereas it occurred fewer than 0.2 timesper minute in all other sessions. The firstthree sessions of the EO analysis (middlepanel) are the escape data taken from thebrief functional analysis. During the EOanalysis negatively reinforced destructivebehavior ranged from 0.1 to 0.7 times perminute (M 0.2) when Charlie was per-mitted to choose the task sequence butranged from 0.4 to 1.0 times per minute(M 0.6) when he was not permitted tosequence his tasks. In the follow-up sessions

(beginning with Session 7), the effects ofchoice of task sequence were examined in anovel setting and with a novel person 1month and then intermittently 1 year after

the initial EO analysis. In all but two of thefollow-up sessions, destructive behavior oc-curred fewer than 0.25 times per minute.During one session (Session 9), Charlie

went home with a fever following the ses-sion. Later that day, he was diagnosed withotitis media in both ears. We cannot know,however, whether the elevation in destruc-tive behavior was functionally related to hisillness. Finally, between Sessions 13 and 14,Charlies classroom teacher implementeddifferential reinforcement of other behavior

(DRO) that involved the delivery of tokenscontingent on approximately every 30 s ofomission of destructive behavior. AfterCharlie earned five tokens, he was allowedto take a 60-s break. Probes of Charlies de-structive behavior (beginning with Session16) show that he did not engage in any de-structive behavior, despite removing thechoice of sequences and the DRO. Similar-ly, the data on Charlies compliance (bot-tom panel) show that there was little dif-ference in compliance when he was given a

choice of task sequence (M 83%) thanwhen he was not (M 78%).

The data from Bens analysis are dis-played in Figure 3. In the brief functionalanalysis (top panel), aggression occurredonly during the escape condition, suggest-ing that it was maintained by negative re-inforcement in the form of escape from ac-ademic tasks. The first three sessions of theEO analysis (middle panel) are the escapedata taken from the brief functional analy-sis. In the EO analysis, virtually no nega-tively reinforced destructive behavior oc-curred when tasks were not repeated. How-ever, destructive behavior consistently oc-curred at a rate of 0.10 per minute whentasks were repeated. Furthermore, duringeight of the ten follow-up sessions (begin-


10/15


Figure 2. Number of responses per minute of Charlies self-injury in the functional analysis (top panel),the EO analysis and follow-up (middle panel), and percentage of intervals with compliance (bottom panel).Follow-up sessions begin in Session 7. The single carat indicates probe in novel setting, and the double caratindicates probe with novel instructor.


11/15


Figure 3. Number of responses per minute of Bens aggression in the functional analysis (top panel), EOanalysis and follow-up (middle panel), and percentage of intervals with compliance (bottom panel). Follow-upsessions begin in Session 10. The single carat indicates probe with novel instructor.


12/15


ning in Session 10), no destructive behavioroccurred. Finally, Bens task compliance(bottom panel) was slightly higher whentasks were not repeated (M 86%) than

when they were repeated (M

75%).

DISCUSSION

The results of this investigation demon-strate that the effects of idiosyncratic featuresof academic task demands can be experi-mentally isolated from the effects of conse-quences of responding. Further, alterationsin instructional methods decreased the oc-currence of destructive behavior maintainedby negative reinforcement without decreas-

ing the instructional level of task demands,eliminating task demands, or disrupting theconsequences for destructive behavior. Thisstudy extends the work of Smith et al.(1995) by demonstrating the effects of spe-cific antecedents or methods of instructionon self-injury, disruption, and aggressionmaintained by negative reinforcement.

Our interpretation of these results in-volves establishing operations (Keller &Schoenfeld, 1950; Michael, 1982). One dis-tinguishing characteristic of the effect of es-

tablishing operations is that nonrespondingin the absence of aversive stimulation is dueto a lack of motivation to respond and es-cape the stimulation (Michael, 1993). Theseeffects are distinct from those of discrimi-native control, in which nonresponding isdue to extinction. Extinction was not ar-ranged in either condition of the present in-vestigation, yet the occurrence of destructivebehavior was functionally related to the pres-ence or absence of the specified method ofinstruction. If the contingency between be-havior and its maintaining consequences isintact and behavior is altered by the presenceor absence of antecedent variables, then theantecedent variables may be classified as EOs(Smith & Iwata, 1997). Thus, because neg-ative reinforcement was always available for

destructive behavior but not for compliance,the most parsimonious explanation is thatthe results of the present investigation rep-resent a preliminary analysis of the effects of

EO manipulations.Although the overall findings are consis-tent with an interpretation that EO manip-ulations influenced the occurrence of nega-tively reinforced behavior, the specific rea-sons for the changes in destructive behavioracross students remain idiosyncratic andcomplex. Stimuli can function as establish-ing operations when they alter the probabil-ity of behavior that has been previously neg-atively reinforced through the contingenttermination of such stimulation (Michael,

1993). For each participant, different prop-erties of the complex stimulus array involvedin academic task demands functioned asEOs for negatively reinforced destructive be-havior. Specific to these findings, it is plau-sible that difficult tasks, adult-determinedtask sequences, and repetition of tasks estab-lished escape as a reinforcer for Elis, Char-lies, and Bens destructive behavior, respec-tively, and that for each, a specific methodof instruction diminished those effects.

Elis analysis demonstrated the effects of

an instructional strategy on destructive be-havior. Specifically, Elis data indicate that,in some cases, instructional strategies canproduce not only improvements in academicperformance but also reductions in destruc-tive behavior in the classroom. The resultssuggest that the instructional strategy facili-tated successful completion of problems, di-minishing the effects of negative reinforce-ment and therefore decreasing the occur-rence of Elis negatively reinforced destruc-tive behavior. Previous research hasdemonstrated the effects of instructionalstrategies on accurate academic performance(Daly, Martens, Hamler, Dool, & Eckert,1999; Jolivette, Wehby, & Hirsch, 1999;McComas, Wacker, & Cooper, 1996;McComas, Wacker, Cooper, Asmus, et al.,


13/15


1996) but has neither systematically exam-ined the effects of instructional strategies onnegatively reinforced destructive behaviornor demonstrated that difficult tasks can es-

tablish escape as a reinforcer (i.e., functionsas an EO) for destructive behavior.Charlies analysis demonstrated the effects

of choice of task sequence on destructive be-havior. These results extended previous re-search on choice making as an antecedentprocedure for decreasing destructive behav-ior (Daly et al., 1997; Dunlap et al., 1994;Vaughn & Horner, 1997) by eliminating theissue of preference from the analysis, thusisolating the effects of choice. Specifically,this was done by allowing a choice of se-

quence of tasks in one condition but requir-ing completion of the same tasks in bothconditions. Because the consequences for de-structive behavior and the assigned tasks

were constant across conditions, changes inthe occurrence of destructive behavior canbe attributed to choice of task sequence. Thedata suggest that when Charlie was permit-ted to choose the sequence of his tasks, de-structive behavior was less likely to occur.Thus, it is plausible that adult-determinedtask sequences can establish escape as a re-

inforcer (i.e., functions as an EO) for de-structive behavior.

The results of Bens analysis suggest thatdestructive behavior was related to repeatedpresentation of the same task demand. Spe-cifically, the presentation of an identical

worksheet for the second time during a 90-min work period was consistently related todestructive behavior. These data represent apromising alteration in instructional meth-ods for preventing Bens destructive behav-ior. Further, Bens data demonstrate that rep-etition of tasks established escape as a rein-forcer (i.e., served as an EO) for destructivebehavior.

There are a number of limitations to thisinvestigation that warrant consideration.First, the procedures in this investigation

failed to completely isolate related anteced-ent variables (e.g., the availability of a choiceand presence of the choice board). Futureresearchers may want to isolate and manip-

ulate the presence and absence of each ofthese variables while keeping the conse-quences constant across conditions, to de-termine their individual influence on re-sponding. Second, we were able to identifyantecedent variables that, when present, re-liably led to the nonoccurrence (i.e., preven-tion) of destructive behavior for only 2 ofthe 3 participants. The remaining partici-pant (Charlie) continued to engage in lowrates of destructive behavior during the ini-tial EO analysis. The occurrence of destruc-

tive behavior during those sessions suggeststhat complex or multiple EOs that were notidentified in this investigation were in placefor negatively reinforced destructive behaviorduring academic tasks. In addition, an over-all decrease was observed in Charlies self-injury data with and without the DRO pro-cedure during the final months of data col-lection; thus, caution is warranted in inter-preting Charlies follow-up data. Finally, theoverall results should be viewed cautiouslydue to limited number of sessions conducted

in some conditions, perhaps most notably inthe functional analysis. It is plausible that ifmore sessions had been conducted in thefunctional analyses, other functions wouldhave appeared. This seems unlikely because,for Charlie and Ben, there was no overlap inthe escape data series with the other dataseries, and because there was only one over-lapping data point in the series of escape ses-sions for Eli. Moreover, the maintenance oftreatment effects seen during follow-up ses-sions for up to 1 year supports the robust-ness of the treatment and provides indirectconfirmation of the assessment methods.

REFERENCESCameron, M. J., Ainsleigh, S. A., & Bird, F. L.

(1992). The acquisition of stimulus control of


14/15


compliance and participation during an ADL rou-tine. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 7, 327340.

Carr, E. G., Yarbrough, S. C., & Langdon, N. A.(1997). Effects of idiosyncratic stimulus variableson functional analysis outcomes. Journal of Ap-

plied Behavior Analysis, 30, 673686.Daly, E. J., III, Martens, B. K., Hamler, K. R., Dool,

E. J., & Eckert, T. L. (1999). A brief experimen-tal analysis for identifying instructional compo-nents needed to improve oral reading fluency.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 8394.Dunlap, G., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D.,

Wright, S., White, R., & Gomez, A. (1994).Choice making to promote adaptive behaviors forstudents with emotional and behavioral challeng-es. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 505518.

Goh, H.-L., & Iwata, B. A. (1994). Behavioral per-sistence and variability during extinction of self-injury maintained by escape. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 27, 173174.Halle, J. W., & Spradlin, J. E. (1993). Identifying

stimulus control of challenging behavior. In J.Richle & D. P. Wacker (Eds.), Communicative al-ternatives to challenging behavior (pp. 83109).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Horner, R. H., Day, H. M., & Day, J. R. (1997).Using neutralizing routines to reduce problem be-haviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30,601614.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K.E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a func-tional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 27, 197209. (Reprinted from

Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Dis-

abilities, 2, 320, 1982)Jolivette, K., Wehby, J. H., & Hirsch, L. (1999). Ac-ademic strategy identification for students exhib-iting inappropriate classroom behaviors. Behavior-al Disorders, 24(3), 210221.

Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). Principlesof psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Lerman, D. C., Iwata, B. A., & Wallace, M. D.(1999). Side effects of extinction: Prevalence ofbursting and aggression during the treatment ofself-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 32, 17.

McComas, J. J., Wacker, D. P., & Cooper, L. J.(1996). Experimental analysis of academic per-formance in a classroom setting. Journal of Behav-ioral Education, 6, 191202.

McComas, J. J., Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J., Asmus,J. M., Richman, D., & Stoner, B. (1996). Briefexperimental analysis of stimulus prompts for ac-curate responding in academic tasks in an outpa-tient clinic. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,29, 397402.

Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between the dis-criminative and motivational functions of stimuli.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,37, 149155.

Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Be-

havior Analyst, 16, 191206.Northup, J., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Kelly, L.,

Sasso, G., & DeRaad, A. (1994). The treatmentof severe behavior problems in school settings us-ing a technical assistance model. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 27, 3347.

Smith, R. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1997). Antecedentinfluences on behavior disorders. Journal of Ap-

plied Behavior Analysis, 30, 343375.Smith, R. G., Iwata, B. A., Goh, H.-L., & Shore, B.

A. (1995). Analysis of establishing operations forself-injury maintained by escape. Journal of Ap-

plied Behavior Analysis, 28, 515535.Vaughn, B. J., & Horner, R. H. (1997). Identifying

instructional tasks that occasion problem behav-iors and assessing the effects of student versusteacher choice among these tasks. Journal of Ap-

plied Behavior Analysis, 30, 299312.

Received November 8, 1999Final acceptance August 17, 2000

Action Editor, Richard G. Smith

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What aspect of Bens preassessment treatment plan may have served to increase the proba-

bility of his aggression? How did the authors verify this hypothesis?

2. Summarize the results of the functional and descriptive analyses for the 3 participants.

3. What were the dependent and independent variables in the establishing operation (EO)analysis?


15/15


4. Briefly summarize the results of the EO analysis.

5. Based on the manipulations of antecedent and consequent variables during each participantsEO analysis, what general model for assessing the influence of antecedent events on behavior

is illustrated?

6. How did the authors insure that differences in responding during Charlies analysis couldbe attributed to the opportunity to choose independent of access to more highly preferredinstructions?

7. What features of the analysis lend support to the authors classification of the antecedentevents in this study as EOs?

8. What do Charlies data suggest about treatment integrity with interventions based exclusivelyon the alteration of antecedent events? How might the effects of such interventions be

enhanced?

Questions prepared by Gregory Hanley and Juliet Conners, The University of Florida

ESCAPE BEHAVIOR McComas Et Al. 2000

Documents

Transcript of ESCAPE BEHAVIOR McComas Et Al. 2000