Choose One Of The Following Behavioral Procedures And Target

Chooseoneof The Following Behavioral Procedures And Target Behavior Sc

Choose one of the following behavioral procedures and target behavior scenarios and conduct a risk–benefit analysis, following the worksheet example in your textbook. Delivering aromatic-ammonia contingent on pica attempts of an adult in a group home setting. A differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI) to address a repetitive behavior (vocal stereotypy) of a teenager in a school setting. A differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) to address SIB exhibited by a toddler in a home setting.

Paper For Above instruction

The application of behavioral procedures in managing problematic behaviors is a cornerstone of applied behavior analysis (ABA). Among these strategies, Differential Reinforcement techniques such as Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior (DRI) and Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO) are frequently employed due to their targeted nature and effectiveness in reducing undesirable behaviors while promoting positive alternatives. This paper conducts a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis of two scenarios: implementing DRI to address vocal stereotypy in a teenager in a school setting and applying DRO to manage self-injurious behavior (SIB) in a toddler within a home environment.

Scenario 1: DRI for Vocal Stereotypy in a Teenager

Vocal stereotypy, such as repetitive vocal tics or meaningless sounds, can interfere with learning and social interactions in school settings. Employing DRI involves reinforcing a behavior that is incompatible with the stereotypy—such as engaging in a different, appropriate activity or vocal behavior that does not interfere with classroom conduct. The benefits of this approach include reducing the frequency of stereotypic vocalizations, promoting more adaptive communication skills, and improving social interactions. Moreover, reinforcing incompatible behaviors directly targets the problematic behavior, making it less likely to recur.

However, risks include the potential for the reinforced incompatible behavior to become excessively dominant or to inadvertently reinforce other problematic behaviors if not carefully monitored. For instance, if the incompatible behavior is not clearly defined or if reinforcement is not contingent solely on the absence of vocal stereotypy, unintended behaviors may increase. Additionally, if the reinforcement schedule is not carefully managed, it might result in inconsistent outcomes or diminished motivation.

The benefits outweigh these risks when the intervention is implemented with precision, utilizing data-driven decision-making, and ensuring that reinforcement criteria are clearly defined and consistently applied. Furthermore, combining DRI with functional communication training (FCT) can address underlying communicative deficits and enhance overall effectiveness.

Scenario 2: DRO for SIB in a Toddler

The use of DRO involves delivering reinforcement contingent upon the absence of the target behavior, such as SIB, for a specified interval. In a home setting, this strategy aims to increase the duration between SIB incidents, reducing overall harm risk. The primary benefit of DRO is that it does not require the identification of an incompatible behavior, which can be particularly advantageous in very young children who may have limited behavioral repertoires. It can also be implemented with minimal interference in daily routines and can be combined with other interventions to promote alternative, functional behaviors.

However, risks include the possibility of reinforcing alternative behaviors that are not functional or maladaptive, or inadvertently reinforcing the absence of SIB during times when the child is engaged in other undesired behaviors. For example, if the reinforcement is provided without careful monitoring, a child might learn to elicit other behaviors to gain reinforcement, or SIB may become suppressed temporarily but recur when reinforcement levels decrease.

The benefits of DRO are maximized by setting appropriate interval schedules, ensuring reinforcement is delivered only when SIB has not occurred during the interval, and pairing reinforcement with natural reinforcers. Combining DRO with functional behavior assessment (FBA) allows caregivers to understand the function of SIB and to develop more comprehensive intervention plans.

Risk–Benefit Analysis

Both DRI and DRO are valuable behavioral procedures with distinct applications, benefits, and risks. DRI offers a direct approach to reducing specific behaviors by reinforcing incompatible responses, making it especially effective for behaviors like vocal stereotypy that have clear, observable incompatible alternatives. Its risks involve potential reinforcement of other unintended behaviors, which can be mitigated through careful monitoring and data collection.

Conversely, DRO provides a broad reduction in problematic behavior by encouraging periods of non-occurrence, suitable for behaviors like SIB, where identifying incompatible behaviors may be challenging or less effective. Its main risks involve inadvertently reinforcing non-target maladaptive behaviors or encouraging the child to elicit reinforcement through other means.

In both scenarios, the success of the intervention hinges on precise implementation, ongoing data monitoring, and integrating functional assessments to ensure that reinforcement strategies are aligned with the individual’s needs and behavioral function. When carefully managed, these procedures can lead to meaningful reductions in problematic behaviors while promoting adaptive skills, thereby improving the individual’s quality of life and social participation.

Conclusion

Implementing behavioral procedures such as DRI and DRO involves balancing potential benefits with associated risks. With meticulous planning, ongoing evaluation, and tailored reinforcement strategies, these techniques can effectively reduce problematic behaviors like vocal stereotypy and SIB. Their success depends on deploying evidence-based practices within a comprehensive, individualized intervention framework that considers the behavioral function and environmental context of each individual.

References

• Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.
• Iwata, B. A., et al. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 197–209.
• Carr, J. E., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(2), 111–126.
• Horner, R. H., et al. (2002). The use of functional behavior assessment and checklist measures to guide intervention planning. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11(4), 317–342.
• Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Fixing addressing reinforcement contingencies: A practical approach. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(3), 405–422.
• Miltenberger, R. G. (2015). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures. Cengage Learning.
• Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Authors Cooperative.
• DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of schedule effects in reinforcement procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(3), 297–306.
• Carreau, A., & Cumming, S. (2005). Analyzing and managing behavioral functions. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2(2), 22–29.
• Matson, J. L., & Kozlowski, A. M. (2011). Functional assessment and treatment of problem behaviors associated with autism spectrum disorders. Springer Science & Business Media.