507 class
Amanda Mayher
Weiss (2018) discusses the need for the continuance of and adherence to the scientist-practitioner model within the field of behavior analysis in order to protect and advance the science. The concept of the scientist-practitioner model was initially known as the Boulder Model, which “emphasized the need to develop professionals grounded in science, trained in effective treatment methods, and committed to the identification and evolution of the filed through empirical research” (Weiss, 2018, p. 385). Weiss (2018) suggests that the behaviorist’s worldview guides everything that behaviorists do. A scientist makes logical decisions based upon their empirical findings; similarly, a behavior analyst uses evidence-based support to guide their logical decisions. Codes 1.01, 1.02, 2.09, and 6.02 support this claim. First, Code 1.01 states that behavior analysts rely on professionally derived knowledge that is based upon science and behavior analysis (Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2014). Next, behavior analysts only provide services, teach, and conduct research within their boundaries of competency including their education, training, and supervision experiences. According to Weiss (2018), this section of the Code emphasizes the need to train the next generation of researchers as well as clinicians. Code 2.09 demonstrates the behavior analyst’s obligations regarding treatment/intervention efficacy. Treatment should be based upon empiricism and be individualized. Last, Code 6.02 states that the behavior analyst should make information available to the public through presentations, discussions, and other media (BACB, 2014). Weiss (2018) suggests that full implementation of dissemination would involve continuous presentation and publication of research efforts.
Behavior analysts may conduct research on interventions that may increase or decrease an individual’s behavior or when doing a Functional Analysis. Scientific evidence is gathered to determine which intervention may be most effective for specific behaviors. Analysts following the scientist-practitioner model will identify and describe how the independent variable (intervention) would impact the target behavior (dependent variable) forming a hypothesis. They would then choose a research design that would best demonstrate experimental control such as withdrawal and reversal designs. The A-B-A-B design allows for experimental control because the intervention can be repeated and withdrawn. Data is collected during both the baseline and intervention phases to determine if the intervention is effective.
References
Bailey, J.S., & Burch, M.R. (2016). Ethics for behavior analysts. (3rd ed.). New York: NY: Routledge.
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2014). Professional and ethical compliance code for behavior analysts. Retrieved from https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/BACB-Compliance-Code-english_190318.pdf.
Weiss, M. J. (2018). The concept of the scientist practitioner and its extension to behavior analysis. Education and Treatment of Children, 41(3), 385-394.
Gaylene Harvey:
In order to outline the commonalities of the scientist-practitioner model and applied behavior analysis, one must understand what the scientist-practitioner model is and how it works. The understanding of this term or model is simple, it is where one is trained to use the principles of science/scientific investigations, processes, and findings within their given field of practice (Masters, 2013). Just as a scientist would make logical decision based on their research findings with empirical support, so does a behavior analyst. Behavior analysts only use evidence-based (scientific) information to make their logical decisions on which intervention to use for each individual they work with as required by the Behavior Analysts Certification Board (BACB, 2014. Code 1.01).
Although most scientists research is usually conducted separately from practice (working within a particular field), within applied behavior analysis, it is combined together. An intervention is not developed without collecting evidence to support it. For instance, a common form of scientific research design is conducted prior or during a functional assessment/analysis. This research design is usually the A-B-A-B design, which allows for experimental control to be seen and identified. For example, there a several ways people cope with aggressive behavior, but to decrease or put it on extinction, the proper information needs to be collected (research). A way to identify the function of the aggressive behavior is to use a research design such as the A-B-A-B design (as long as it is safe for the individual and others). This design allows for (experimental) manipulation of independent variables such as adding or removing items or other individuals (changing the environment) to identify what may be the function of the aggressive behavior (dependent variable). Again, as long as it is safe to do so, repeat the process and collecting the data from both the base line and the intervention sessions will allow for evidence if the intervention is effective or ineffective, providing scientific evidence/information used for evaluation and the decision-making process. This information provides the evidence that is needed to make a sound and logical decision on which is the best intervention to use to reduce/decrease or to put on extinction the aggressive behavior. This research method also provides clear experimental control of the behavior, not only for the behavior analyst, but for others to see as well. Providing the required evidence needed to help promote the advancement and involvement of research within applied behavior analysis.
Another thing the scientist-practitioner model and applied behavior analysis have in common is the informed consent. Before a research can be conducted, an informed consent must be provided and explained in detail to the participant in a language in which they can understand. In behavior analysis, an informed consent must also be provided and explained, but it is not just provided to the individual prior to services, it is continuously provided periodically. For example, if an intervention needs to be changed in any way (either added to, take an element out, or a totally different intervention altogether). The BACB (2014) requires that an informed consent be obtained in more than one of the ethical codes provided. For instance, Code 3.05 Consent-Client Records and 9.03 Informed Consent (BABC, 2014). Behavior analysts are always conducting research in their practice (or should be) outside of what would/could be classified as a ‘normal research situation/scenario’, so the BACB (2014) requires that the participant and/or guardian(s) are informed in the purpose/nature of the research, their right to participate or withdraw, any significant factors, and questions they may have (BACB, 2014. Code 9.03). With that in mind, both the scientist-practitioner model and applied behavior analysis also debrief the individual/participant at the conclusion of their involvement (BABC, 2014. Code 9.05).
References
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2014). Professional and ethical compliance code for behavior analysts. Retrieved from https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/BACB-Compliance-Code-english_190318.pdf
Masters K.S. (2013) Scientist-Practitioner. In: Runehov A.L.C., Oviedo L. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions. Springer, D
Class 517
Rose Dubois
According to Mayer, Sulzer-Azaroff & Wallace (2014), the motivating operation (MO), is any antecedent that alters the value of the consequences and by the same way alter the behavior. The motivating operations (MOs) can increase or decrease the values of the consequences. Two terms can describe those setting events that can affect the behavior: the establishing operations and the abolishing operations. Cooper, Heron & Heward (2011), stated that the establishing operation (EO) refers to an increase of the reinforcing effectiveness of some stimulus following the manipulation of the environment. The setting events can decrease the reinforcing effects, and it refers in this case to the abolishing operations (AO).
The challenging behavior that I choose to increase is task refusal behavior maintaining by access to tangible such as videogame. In this situation, we consider two concepts satiation and deprivation. So, the videogame as a reinforcer to modify the target behavior depends on the satiation or the deprivation. In the case of satiation, the effectiveness of the videogame as reinforcer will not decrease the frequency of task refusal because the student was playing his favorite videogame, before starting working, so it creates an AO. In this situation, the frequency of the target behavior which is task refusal, maintaining by access to videogame increased, and the use of reinforcer is evocative of the task refusal; in other words, the videogame abates staying on-task behavior. The deprivation will increase the value of the reinforcers, so the use of the videogame as the reinforcer will reduce the frequency of the task refusal, the student does not access to the videogame before starting working, so in this situation an establishing operation (EO) is created, and the access to the videogame abates the task refusal, or in other words the use of videogame is evocative of staying on-task behavior.
So, in this situation where the goal is to decrease the frequency of task refusal, the best strategy identifies should consider a way to modify the environment to motivate the student to stay on task. As I described above, the establishing operation (MO) is the best in this case, so by creating deprivation, we increase the power of the reinforcers, and the student will follow the direction in order to access to the videogame.
IN this case, we will deliver the reinforcers for each occurrence on staying on task, that means following a FR 1.
Reference
Cooper, J.O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Mayer, G. R., Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Wallace, M. (2014). Behavior analysis for lasting change (3rd ed.). Cornwall-on-Hudson, NJ: Sloan Publishing.
Jessie Otten
According to the authors, a motivating operation is an event that happen before a behavior or activity alter the behavior of the individual or alter the consequence that would have been given. Establishing operations are very similar to the motivating operations. The authors have the establishing operation under the same definition as the motivating operation. The results of these operations can increase or decrease in the punishment or reinforcer of the behavior (Mayer, Sulzer-Azaroff, & Wallace, 2014). An antecedent control is the manipulation of an environment in order to acquire the desired results or response in order to lessen the occurrence of a competing response (Mayer et al., 2014). A challenging behavior that could be altered or changed with the use of an antecedent control would be a young child who throws tantrums in order to gain or obtain something that they want. The motivating operation would be when the young child is at the store with their parents. They see something they that want, the parents tell the young child no. The young child continues to ask, the parents continue to say no and move on. The young child then begins to scream, cry, yell, throw their arms in air hitting items and people, kicking their legs back and forth, or throwing themselves on the ground if they are walking and not riding in the shopping cart. The parents haven given into the child before so they child would stop the tantrum. The parents would be able to lessen or abate this behavior if they talk to the child about what they are going to the store for, social stories, or other reinforcers if the child is able to make it through the store without a tantrum because they haven’t gotten something they wanted. Some ways that the parents can evocate the tantrum behavior would be to have items that the child might ask for while in the store at their disposal. The parents would then inform the child that if they behavior while in the store and not have a tantrum because they want something, then they can have a preferred item when they have left the store. This would allow the child to know what is expected of them in order to obtain the preferred item. This would also abate the tantrum behavior while in the store.
These can be used in an intervention setting by allowing the client to know what is expected of them and what can be a reward if they are able to accomplish everything that is expected of them. This can also be used with someone in order to have them correctly say or identify an item. They will know that once they have correctly identified the item, they will receive a preferred reward. This can be altered to fit the individual. So, every item, every second, third, fourth, and so on. The individual would be able to determine the pattern and try hard enough to accomplish the preferred number to receive the preferred item. If the individual was unable to meet the criteria or expectations, then they would not receive the preferred reinforcer at that time but would be able to start over to attempt to earn the preferred reinforcer once they have been made aware what is expected or needed in order to obtain the preferred reinforcer.
Reference
Mayer, G. R., Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Wallace, M. (2014). Behavior Analysis for Lasting Change (Third ed.).Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY: Sloan Publishing.