Technologies of Generalization Ps620 Stimulus Control Caldwell College.

Technologies of Technologies of GeneralizationGeneralization

Ps620 Stimulus ControlPs620 Stimulus Control

Caldwell CollegeCaldwell College

Baer, Wolf & Risely (1968)Baer, Wolf & Risely (1968)Some Current Dimensions of Applied Some Current Dimensions of Applied

Behavior AnalysisBehavior Analysis

-“Generality” as one of the 7 dimensions -“Generality” as one of the 7 dimensions of ABAof ABA

- should be programmed, rather than - should be programmed, rather than lamentedlamented

Stokes & Baer (1977)Stokes & Baer (1977) An Implicit Technology of An Implicit Technology of

GeneralizationGeneralization-Over 50% of research reviewed relied on “train -Over 50% of research reviewed relied on “train and hope” despite 1968 article’s suggestionand hope” despite 1968 article’s suggestion

- Article raised interest in generalization as an - Article raised interest in generalization as an active process which validates the effectiveness active process which validates the effectiveness of behavioral programmingof behavioral programming

- Generalization should be pursued by Behavior - Generalization should be pursued by Behavior AnalystsAnalysts

- Brought realization that behavior change is most - Brought realization that behavior change is most functional when its effects are widespread as well functional when its effects are widespread as well as immediateas immediate

Stokes & Baer (1977)Stokes & Baer (1977)Reviewed 270 studies on Reviewed 270 studies on generalizationgeneralization

Categorized 9 techniques for assessing Categorized 9 techniques for assessing and training generalizationand training generalization

Stokes & Baer (1977)Stokes & Baer (1977)Outlined 9 categories of generalization:Outlined 9 categories of generalization:-train and hope-train and hope-sequential modification-sequential modification-introduce to naturally maintaining contingencies-introduce to naturally maintaining contingencies-train sufficient exemplars-train sufficient exemplars-train loosely-train loosely-use indiscriminable contingencies -use indiscriminable contingencies -program common stimuli-program common stimuli-mediate generalization-mediate generalization-train to generalize-train to generalize

Stokes & Baer (1977)Stokes & Baer (1977)1. Train and hope1. Train and hope

-behavior change is effected under limited -behavior change is effected under limited conditions (persons, settings, stimuli)conditions (persons, settings, stimuli)

-assessing for generalization but not -assessing for generalization but not programming for itprogramming for it

Stokes & Baer (1977)Stokes & Baer (1977)2. Sequential modification2. Sequential modification

- behavior change is effected under limited - behavior change is effected under limited conditions (persons, settings, stimuli)conditions (persons, settings, stimuli)

-assessing for generalization THEN -assessing for generalization THEN directly train in “generalization” settings if directly train in “generalization” settings if generalization does not occurgeneralization does not occur

Stokes & Baer (1977)Stokes & Baer (1977)3. Introduce to naturally maintaining 3. Introduce to naturally maintaining contingenciescontingencies

-t-teach the target behavior to levels of each the target behavior to levels of performance required by naturally existing performance required by naturally existing contingencies of reinforcementcontingencies of reinforcement

-hope that natural contingencies will “trap” -hope that natural contingencies will “trap” behaviorbehavior

Stokes & Baer (1977)Stokes & Baer (1977)4. Train sufficient (multiple) exemplars4. Train sufficient (multiple) exemplars- - Teach the student to respond to a Teach the student to respond to a subsetsubset of all of all possible stimulus and response examples and possible stimulus and response examples and then assess generalization on untrained examples then assess generalization on untrained examples (generalization probe)(generalization probe)

Examples: Item taught, format of Examples: Item taught, format of presentation, setting, person teachingpresentation, setting, person teaching

Stokes & Baer (1977)Stokes & Baer (1977)5. Train “loosely”5. Train “loosely”-Means to “rMeans to “randomly” vary noncritical aspects of andomly” vary noncritical aspects of the instructional setting within and across the instructional setting within and across teaching sessionsteaching sessions- If some aspect of the materials, setting, method If some aspect of the materials, setting, method of presentation doesn’t matter, then change it of presentation doesn’t matter, then change it from time to time so the learner’s response from time to time so the learner’s response doesn’t come under control by an “irrelevant doesn’t come under control by an “irrelevant feature”feature”-this tactic often overlaps with “train sufficient this tactic often overlaps with “train sufficient exemplars” as can be seen on next slideexemplars” as can be seen on next slide

Baer’s (1999) RecommendationsBaer’s (1999) Recommendations

Use 2 or more teachersUse 2 or more teachersTeach in 2 or more settingsTeach in 2 or more settingsTeach from a variety of body positions (topography)Teach from a variety of body positions (topography)Vary your tone of voiceVary your tone of voiceVary your choice of wordsVary your choice of wordsShow the stimuli from a variety of angles, using sometimes Show the stimuli from a variety of angles, using sometimes one hand and sometimes the other (topography)one hand and sometimes the other (topography)Have other people present sometimes and not other timesHave other people present sometimes and not other timesDress differently on different daysDress differently on different daysVary the reinforcersVary the reinforcersTeach sometimes in noisy settings, sometimes in quiet onesTeach sometimes in noisy settings, sometimes in quiet onesIn any setting, vary the decorations, vary the furniture, and In any setting, vary the decorations, vary the furniture, and vary their locationsvary their locationsVary the times of day when you and everyone else teachVary the times of day when you and everyone else teachVary the temperature in the teaching settingsVary the temperature in the teaching settingsVary the smells in the teaching settingsVary the smells in the teaching settingsWithin limits, vary the content of what’s being taughtWithin limits, vary the content of what’s being taughtDo all of these as often and as unpredictably Do all of these as often and as unpredictably as possibleas possible

Stokes & Baer (1977)Stokes & Baer (1977)6. Use indiscriminable contingencies 6. Use indiscriminable contingencies

-quantity, quality, delay of delivery, & type -quantity, quality, delay of delivery, & type of reinforcer should never be specific to a of reinforcer should never be specific to a specific skill, setting, or teacherspecific skill, setting, or teacher

-same holds for schedule of reinforcement -same holds for schedule of reinforcement used to deliver reinforcerused to deliver reinforcer

Stokes & Baer (1977)Stokes & Baer (1977)7. Program common stimuli (“features”)7. Program common stimuli (“features”)-Include aspects of the generalization Include aspects of the generalization setting into the instructional settingsetting into the instructional setting-This requires analysis of “relevant This requires analysis of “relevant features” in the generalization settingfeatures” in the generalization setting-Tolerating dental procedures?Tolerating dental procedures?

Stokes & Baer (1977)Stokes & Baer (1977)8. Mediate generalization8. Mediate generalization

-seems to refer to covert or overt talking to -seems to refer to covert or overt talking to oneselfoneself

Stokes & Baer (1977)Stokes & Baer (1977)8. Teach “generalizing” as a behavior8. Teach “generalizing” as a behavior

-means sometimes we need to reinforce -means sometimes we need to reinforce generalization explicitlygeneralization explicitly

-this would be something like the opposite -this would be something like the opposite of “overselectivity”of “overselectivity”

Stokes & Baer (1977)Stokes & Baer (1977)

-Article was highly acclaimed in the field of -Article was highly acclaimed in the field of ABAABA

-Focus for researchers should be on -Focus for researchers should be on functional variables responsible for functional variables responsible for generalization or lack of itgeneralization or lack of it

CRITICAL to advancement in the field.CRITICAL to advancement in the field.

Stokes & Osnes (1989)Stokes & Osnes (1989)An Operant Pursuit of GeneralizationAn Operant Pursuit of Generalization

-noted the need for researchers to answer -noted the need for researchers to answer the following questions…the following questions…

1. Did the behavior occur in 1. Did the behavior occur in generalized circumstances?generalized circumstances?

2. What are the functional variables 2. What are the functional variables which account for generalization?which account for generalization?

Stokes & Osnes (1989)Stokes & Osnes (1989)- refined generalization promoting categories refined generalization promoting categories

centered on the basic principles of behaviorcentered on the basic principles of behavior- Proposed 3 categories of GeneralizationProposed 3 categories of Generalization

* Exploit Current Functional * Exploit Current Functional ContingenciesContingencies

- - behaviors are naturally selected by consequencesbehaviors are naturally selected by consequences

* Train Diversely* Train Diversely- - diversity in the exemplars of diversity in the exemplars of learninglearning

* Incorporate Functional Mediators* Incorporate Functional Mediators – – relationship between salient conditions of learning and relationship between salient conditions of learning and stimulus control exerted over behavior by environments stimulus control exerted over behavior by environments related to original learningrelated to original learning

Stokes & Osnes (1989)Stokes & Osnes (1989)

* * Exploit Current Functional Exploit Current Functional ContingenciesContingencies

• Contact natural consequencesContact natural consequences• Recruit natural consequencesRecruit natural consequences• Modify maladaptive consequencesModify maladaptive consequences• Reinforce occurrences of generalizationReinforce occurrences of generalization


* Train Diversely* Train Diversely

• Use sufficient stimulus exemplarsUse sufficient stimulus exemplars• Use sufficient response exemplarsUse sufficient response exemplars• Make antecedents less discriminable Make antecedents less discriminable

• Make consequences less discriminableMake consequences less discriminable


• Incorporate Functional MediatorsIncorporate Functional Mediators

• Incorporate common salient stimuliIncorporate common salient stimuli• Incorporate common salient social stimuliIncorporate common salient social stimuli• Incorporate self-mediated physical stimuliIncorporate self-mediated physical stimuli• Incorporate self-mediated verbal and covert Incorporate self-mediated verbal and covert

stimulistimuli

Osnes & Lieblein (2003)Osnes & Lieblein (2003)An Explicit Technology of An Explicit Technology of

GeneralizationGeneralization

25 years after Stokes & Baer (1977)25 years after Stokes & Baer (1977)

14 years after Stokes & Osnes (1989)14 years after Stokes & Osnes (1989)

… ….have we progressed passed “train .have we progressed passed “train and hope” to the point where we and hope” to the point where we demonstrate a demonstrate a generalization promoting generalization promoting functionfunction of behavior change of behavior change procedures?procedures?

Osnes & Lieblein (2003)Osnes & Lieblein (2003)

Journals from 1990-2002 were sampled to Journals from 1990-2002 were sampled to identify articles focusing on generalizationidentify articles focusing on generalization

- “generalization” or “maintenance” in title or descriptor - “generalization” or “maintenance” in title or descriptor wordswords

- abstract stated that maintenance or generalization was - abstract stated that maintenance or generalization was goal or topic goal or topic

- condition to assess maintenance or follow-up condition - condition to assess maintenance or follow-up condition presentpresent

- probes for generalizationprobes for generalization - reversal design to assess durability of effect post-- reversal design to assess durability of effect post-

treatment treatment


Journals sampledJournals sampled

- - JABA JABA

- - Behavior ModificationBehavior Modification

- - Journal of Positive Behavior InterventionsJournal of Positive Behavior Interventions

- - Behavior Analyst TodayBehavior Analyst Today


93 articles met the criteria93 articles met the criteria - - 4 review articles4 review articles - - 1 discussion article1 discussion article - - 88 research articles88 research articles examined for the following:examined for the following:

* attention on strategies for promoting generalization * attention on strategies for promoting generalization in Stokes & Baer (1977) or Stokes & Osnes (1989)in Stokes & Baer (1977) or Stokes & Osnes (1989)

* research methods designed to control for * research methods designed to control for generalization promoting variablesgeneralization promoting variables

* explicit generalization probes* explicit generalization probes * length of follow-up or maintenance conditions* length of follow-up or maintenance conditions

Review Articles- Review Articles- all focused on social all focused on social behaviorbehavior

Singh, N. N., Deitz, D.E., Epstein, M. H., & Singh, J. Singh, N. N., Deitz, D.E., Epstein, M. H., & Singh, J. (1991).(1991).

- Reviewed 28 studies from 10 different journals - Reviewed 28 studies from 10 different journals - articles chosen based on:- articles chosen based on: *generalization/maintenance programming – *generalization/maintenance programming – 14 articles found 14 articles found

skill generalization and programmed for generalization across skill generalization and programmed for generalization across settings/people.settings/people.

No description of how.No description of how.

* follow-up assessment* follow-up assessment maintenance- less than 6 weeks (5 studies)maintenance- less than 6 weeks (5 studies)

follow-up- ranged from 2 days to 1 yr. (10 studies)follow-up- ranged from 2 days to 1 yr. (10 studies)

(difference was unclear)(difference was unclear)

Singh, et al (1991)Singh, et al (1991)

*changes in collateral behaviors*changes in collateral behaviors

resulted from programmed contingencies (2 studies reported such effects)resulted from programmed contingencies (2 studies reported such effects)

Singh, et al. did not utilize Stokes and Baer (1977) Singh, et al. did not utilize Stokes and Baer (1977) categories of generalization but cited Stokes and Osnes categories of generalization but cited Stokes and Osnes (1989)(1989)

Review Articles Review Articles

Chandler, L. K., Lubeck, R. C., & Fowler, S.A. (1992).Chandler, L. K., Lubeck, R. C., & Fowler, S.A. (1992). – –

Reviewed 51 studies from 22 journals Reviewed 51 studies from 22 journals

- Analysis of 4 categories:- Analysis of 4 categories:

generalization dimensiongeneralization dimension

generalization assessment designgeneralization assessment design

behavior change strategiesbehavior change strategies

generalization promotion strategiesgeneralization promotion strategies

- Also addressed most vs. least successful generalization- Also addressed most vs. least successful generalization

Chandler, Lubeck & Fowler (1992)Chandler, Lubeck & Fowler (1992)

Found 4 generalization promoting strategies used Found 4 generalization promoting strategies used most frequently.most frequently.

- functional target behaviors (exploit current functional - functional target behaviors (exploit current functional contingencies)contingencies)

- specification of fluency criterion (incorporate functional - specification of fluency criterion (incorporate functional mediators)mediators)

- indiscriminable contingencies (training diversely)- indiscriminable contingencies (training diversely) - using mediation techniques (incorporate functional - using mediation techniques (incorporate functional

mediators)mediators)

Described studies using Stokes and Baer (1977) Described studies using Stokes and Baer (1977) and Stokes and Osnes (1989)and Stokes and Osnes (1989)

Review ArticlesReview Articles

Landrum, T.J., & Lloyd, J.W. (1992).Landrum, T.J., & Lloyd, J.W. (1992).

- Specifically examined whether generalization was - Specifically examined whether generalization was explicitly addressedexplicitly addressed

- 12 studies met the criteria- 12 studies met the criteria- Authors used Stokes and Baer to guide their analysis.- Authors used Stokes and Baer to guide their analysis.

- Articles divided across 4 categories:- Articles divided across 4 categories: 4 used “train and hope”4 used “train and hope” 3 used teaching relevant behaviors3 used teaching relevant behaviors 3 used sequential modification3 used sequential modification 2 used train sufficient exemplars2 used train sufficient exemplars

Landrum & Lloyd (1992)Landrum & Lloyd (1992)

Maintenance assessed in 7 articlesMaintenance assessed in 7 articlesGeneralization across responses assessed in 2 articles Generalization across responses assessed in 2 articles Generalization across people assessed in 5 articles (only Generalization across people assessed in 5 articles (only

incidentally or anecdotally)incidentally or anecdotally)

Only 1 study assessed all 4 forms of generalizationOnly 1 study assessed all 4 forms of generalization6 studies assessed 2 forms of generalization6 studies assessed 2 forms of generalization

Authors suggest generalization become a dependent Authors suggest generalization become a dependent variable assessed in research as Stokes and Baer did in variable assessed in research as Stokes and Baer did in 19681968

Review ArticlesReview Articles

Fox, J.J., & McEvoy, M.A. (1993).Fox, J.J., & McEvoy, M.A. (1993).

- Stated that is is necessary to not only assess but also enhance - Stated that is is necessary to not only assess but also enhance generality of interventionsgenerality of interventions

- “generality” vs. “generalization” used interchangeably = problematic - “generality” vs. “generalization” used interchangeably = problematic

occurrence of “generality” not sufficient must show empirical occurrence of “generality” not sufficient must show empirical demonstration of “generalization”.demonstration of “generalization”.

- “follow-up” and “maintenance” also used interchangeably- makes - “follow-up” and “maintenance” also used interchangeably- makes determination of conditions necessary for generalization to occur determination of conditions necessary for generalization to occur difficultdifficult

Fox & McEvoy (1993)Fox & McEvoy (1993)

Reviewed research based on Stokes and Baer (1977)Reviewed research based on Stokes and Baer (1977)

Noted increases in;Noted increases in; -generality procedures in research-generality procedures in research -diversity of tactics used-diversity of tactics used -some behavior change across settings, responses and -some behavior change across settings, responses and

people BUT failure to replicate these effects across people BUT failure to replicate these effects across studiesstudies

Few studies used designs which could empirically Few studies used designs which could empirically demonstrate how generality occurreddemonstrate how generality occurred

Discussion ArticleDiscussion Article

Tillman, T.C. (2000).Tillman, T.C. (2000).

-Discussed generalization programming in the context of school based -Discussed generalization programming in the context of school based behavioral consultationbehavioral consultation

-Framed discussion using tactics form Stokes and Baer (1977) and -Framed discussion using tactics form Stokes and Baer (1977) and Stokes and Osnes (1989)Stokes and Osnes (1989)

-Generalization of problem-solving and intervention resulted from -Generalization of problem-solving and intervention resulted from consultation BUT few studies actively examined generalizationconsultation BUT few studies actively examined generalization

once examined, none could demonstrate generalization as a result once examined, none could demonstrate generalization as a result of consultation.of consultation.

-However, Tillman discusses the possibility of creating a consultation -However, Tillman discusses the possibility of creating a consultation generalization program based on Stokes and Baer and Stokes and generalization program based on Stokes and Baer and Stokes and Osnes framework for generalizationOsnes framework for generalization

Research ArticlesResearch Articles

Breakdown: 88 in allBreakdown: 88 in all - 38 used “generalization” or “maintenance” in title or - 38 used “generalization” or “maintenance” in title or

descriptor words and or had a statement in the abstractdescriptor words and or had a statement in the abstract - 11 included a condition to assess maintenance - 11 included a condition to assess maintenance - 29 included a follow-up assessment of post-treatment - 29 included a follow-up assessment of post-treatment

effectseffects - 16 specifically addressed generalization and included - 16 specifically addressed generalization and included

probes for generalizationprobes for generalization - 13 used reversal designs that allowed for assessment of - 13 used reversal designs that allowed for assessment of

durability of effects post-treatment (not maintenance per durability of effects post-treatment (not maintenance per se)se)


38 used “generalization” or “maintenance” in title or descriptor 38 used “generalization” or “maintenance” in title or descriptor words and or had a statement in the abstract…words and or had a statement in the abstract… of those; of those;

- - 30 addressed generalization (14 addressed verbal/communication 30 addressed generalization (14 addressed verbal/communication behaviors, 16 addressed non-verbal behavior)behaviors, 16 addressed non-verbal behavior)

- 8 addressed maintenance- 8 addressed maintenance

Bulk of research showed overt programming for generalizationBulk of research showed overt programming for generalization

Exploit current functional contingenciesExploit current functional contingencies::

Craft, Alber & Heward (1998)-Craft, Alber & Heward (1998)-

- taught students methods to recruit teacher praise - taught students methods to recruit teacher praise

- in generalization condition of multiple baseline design, intermittent - in generalization condition of multiple baseline design, intermittent reinforcement was used and showed improved responding that was reinforcement was used and showed improved responding that was maintainedmaintained


Train diverselyTrain diversely::

Halle and Holt (1991)-Halle and Holt (1991)-

- controlled for generalization by using multi-element probe design to - controlled for generalization by using multi-element probe design to systematically introduce various stimuli into training settingsystematically introduce various stimuli into training setting

- stimulus probes revealed that paired stimuli vs. single stimulus presentation - stimulus probes revealed that paired stimuli vs. single stimulus presentation resulted in target behavior (saying please)resulted in target behavior (saying please)

Shore, Iwata,Lerman, & Shirley (1994)-Shore, Iwata,Lerman, & Shirley (1994)-

- controlled for generalization by using diverse training and systematically - controlled for generalization by using diverse training and systematically varied therapist/setting/demands which resulted in varying levels of varied therapist/setting/demands which resulted in varying levels of generalization of SIB (novel probes) generalization of SIB (novel probes)


Incorporate functional mediatorsIncorporate functional mediators::Pierce & Schriebman (1997)Pierce & Schriebman (1997)- looked to increase social responding- looked to increase social responding- presented a peer via multiple baseline design which increased - presented a peer via multiple baseline design which increased

responding of target childrenresponding of target children- also target children exhibit target behavior in novel setting w/ novel - also target children exhibit target behavior in novel setting w/ novel

peers due to “loose training” of PRTpeers due to “loose training” of PRT

Exploit current functional contingencies and Exploit current functional contingencies and incorporate functional mediatorsincorporate functional mediators::

Connell et al. (1993)Connell et al. (1993)-compared self-assessment vs. self-assessment and recruitment of -compared self-assessment vs. self-assessment and recruitment of

teacher praise in the generalization of transition skills of childrenteacher praise in the generalization of transition skills of children- used multiple baseline design to provide clear examination of - used multiple baseline design to provide clear examination of

generalization from training to classroom settingsgeneralization from training to classroom settings


Sufficient exemplars and contacting natural consequencesSufficient exemplars and contacting natural consequences::Ducharme & Holborn (1997)Ducharme & Holborn (1997)-used multiple baseline design (ABC) -used multiple baseline design (ABC) -initial phase provided multiple training components to increase social skills of -initial phase provided multiple training components to increase social skills of

hearing impaired studentshearing impaired students-in second intervention phase additional peers/parents/materials/room were -in second intervention phase additional peers/parents/materials/room were

presented, fading teacher praise was also usedpresented, fading teacher praise was also used-design allowed demonstration that strategies used increased in the second -design allowed demonstration that strategies used increased in the second

generalization setting (not probed post-intervention though)generalization setting (not probed post-intervention though)

Multiple training exemplarsMultiple training exemplars::Neef et al. (1990)Neef et al. (1990)-compared 2 types of instruction; broad range of training exemplars to simulated -compared 2 types of instruction; broad range of training exemplars to simulated

vs. natural training stimuli in teaching adults w/MR to use washers and dryersvs. natural training stimuli in teaching adults w/MR to use washers and dryers-more errors in generalization were seen when broad range of exemplars was -more errors in generalization were seen when broad range of exemplars was

usedused


Other articles were not designed to control for generalization but Other articles were not designed to control for generalization but included generalization programming;included generalization programming;

Donnelly & Olczak (1990)- used DRI Donnelly & Olczak (1990)- used DRI (exploiting current functional (exploiting current functional contingencies)contingencies) to reduce cigarette pica. Used a generalization condition to reduce cigarette pica. Used a generalization condition including other staff members.including other staff members.

Koegel & Koegel (1990)- faded presence of trainer after criteria was met in Koegel & Koegel (1990)- faded presence of trainer after criteria was met in decreasing stereotypy using self-management techniques decreasing stereotypy using self-management techniques (incorporate (incorporate functional mediators) functional mediators) for children with autismfor children with autism


Articles that addressed maintenance or follow-up were Articles that addressed maintenance or follow-up were subdivided into research that…subdivided into research that…

1. Explicitly investigated variables resulting in 1. Explicitly investigated variables resulting in maintenance maintenance

2. Assessed the presence or absence of maintenance 2. Assessed the presence or absence of maintenance 3. Included follow-up conditions to assess durability3. Included follow-up conditions to assess durability 4. Utilized reversal designs that allowed for examination 4. Utilized reversal designs that allowed for examination

of effect durability (expressly for maintenance of effect durability (expressly for maintenance assessment)assessment)

Bulk of research provided maintenance assessment Bulk of research provided maintenance assessment after treatment was withdrawn NOT designing after treatment was withdrawn NOT designing treatment to enhance maintenancetreatment to enhance maintenance


Only 4 studies actively programmed for maintenance Only 4 studies actively programmed for maintenance byby

Exploiting current functional contingenciesExploiting current functional contingencies::Altus, Welsh, & Miller (1991)- achieved long term maintenance of task Altus, Welsh, & Miller (1991)- achieved long term maintenance of task

completion by members of a student housing co-op, by transferring completion by members of a student housing co-op, by transferring reinforcement responsibilities from researchers to other members of reinforcement responsibilities from researchers to other members of the housing co-opthe housing co-op

Dozier et al. (2001) and Lerman, Iwata, & Shore (1996) used lean Dozier et al. (2001) and Lerman, Iwata, & Shore (1996) used lean schedules of reinforcement and intermittent reinforcement, schedules of reinforcement and intermittent reinforcement, respectively, to maintain behavior changes achieved during respectively, to maintain behavior changes achieved during treatmenttreatment


Incorporating functional mediatorsIncorporating functional mediators::Bennett & Cavanaugh (1998)- studied immediate self-correction procedures Bennett & Cavanaugh (1998)- studied immediate self-correction procedures

vs. delayed or no self-correction procedures in multiplication tasks. vs. delayed or no self-correction procedures in multiplication tasks. Immediate self-correction was most effective in improved responding. Immediate self-correction was most effective in improved responding.

60% of the articles contained follow-up conditions (ranging from 60% of the articles contained follow-up conditions (ranging from one session – one year)one session – one year)

100% of the articles that utilized a reversal design did so to 100% of the articles that utilized a reversal design did so to demonstrate treatment effects, thus failed to show durability demonstrate treatment effects, thus failed to show durability of effects (great for research purpose but not clinically)of effects (great for research purpose but not clinically)

All used highly discriminable conditions (tokens vs. no All used highly discriminable conditions (tokens vs. no tokens, DRA/DRL vs. none, prompts vs. no prompts)tokens, DRA/DRL vs. none, prompts vs. no prompts)

Important point when generalization (durability of effect) is Important point when generalization (durability of effect) is desired desired

Conclusions and RecommendationsConclusions and Recommendations

Original Question….have we progressed Original Question….have we progressed passed “train and hope” to the point passed “train and hope” to the point where we demonstrate a generalization where we demonstrate a generalization promoting function of behavior promoting function of behavior change??change??

Answer is mixedAnswer is mixed

- - researchers are most often assessing maintenance researchers are most often assessing maintenance of effects BUT mostly in the hopes of demonstrating of effects BUT mostly in the hopes of demonstrating experimental control NOT in the hopes of experimental control NOT in the hopes of demonstrating durabilitydemonstrating durability


To achieve both experimental control and generalization and or To achieve both experimental control and generalization and or maintenance, researchers should take the next step..reduce maintenance, researchers should take the next step..reduce highly discriminable aspects of the interventions in an highly discriminable aspects of the interventions in an additional phase of the experiment…additional phase of the experiment…

Generalization continues to be elusiveGeneralization continues to be elusiveA great deal of effort is needed to achieve it…BUT it is necessary A great deal of effort is needed to achieve it…BUT it is necessary

in order for Behavior Analysis to show generality of behavior in order for Behavior Analysis to show generality of behavior change….. Without it we might as well “throw in the towel” change….. Without it we might as well “throw in the towel” according to the authorsaccording to the authors


There are examples of research studies There are examples of research studies designed to demonstrate generalizationdesigned to demonstrate generalization

This is only a sample of journals in the field.This is only a sample of journals in the field.

Authors frequently referred to Stokes& Baer Authors frequently referred to Stokes& Baer ( 1977) and Stokes & Osnes (1989)( 1977) and Stokes & Osnes (1989)

Generalization promotion is well entrenched in Generalization promotion is well entrenched in Behavior Analysis……becoming more Behavior Analysis……becoming more “explicit” than “implicit”“explicit” than “implicit”


BUT…we need to “raise the bar”…..NO research should be BUT…we need to “raise the bar”…..NO research should be conducted without generalization promotion as a part of the conducted without generalization promotion as a part of the research and intervention planresearch and intervention plan

Osnes, P.G., Lieblein, T. (2003). An explicit technology Osnes, P.G., Lieblein, T. (2003). An explicit technology of generalization. of generalization. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3, The Behavior Analyst Today, 3, 364-374364-374..

Technologies of Generalization Ps620 Stimulus Control Caldwell College.

Documents

Transcript of Technologies of Generalization Ps620 Stimulus Control Caldwell College.