ABSTRACT
Functional communication training (FCT) is an evidence-based treatment for behavior targeted for reduction that often combines extinction for target responses and arranges functionally equivalent reinforcement for alternative behavior. Long-term effectiveness of FCT can become compromised when transitioning from clinic to nonclinic contexts or thinning reinforcement schedules for appropriate behavior. Such increases in targeted behavior have been conceptualized as renewal and resurgence, respectively. The relation between resurgence and renewal has yet to be reported. Therefore, the present report retrospectively analyzed the relation between renewal and resurgence in data collected when implementing FCT with children diagnosed with developmental disabilities. We found no relation when evaluating all 34 individuals assessed for resurgence and renewal or a subset of individuals exhibiting both resurgence and renewal. These findings suggest that one form of relapse may not be predictive of another form of relapse.
Subject(s)
Behavior Therapy , Extinction, Psychological , Child , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Extinction, Psychological/physiology , Reinforcement, Psychology , Recurrence , Reinforcement Schedule , Conditioning, Operant/physiologyABSTRACT
We systematically replicated Bachmeyer et al. (2009) by examining extinction procedures matched to each function, individually and in combination, to treat the food or liquid refusal of 4 children diagnosed with a feeding disorder whose inappropriate mealtime behavior was maintained by multiple functions (i.e., escape and attention). Previous research suggests that adding differential reinforcement to extinction procedures may result in better treatment outcomes. Therefore, we added differential reinforcement to extinction procedures matched to each function. Differential reinforcement and extinction matched only to escape or attention resulted in low rates of inappropriate mealtime behavior and high, stable levels of acceptance for only 1 child. Consistent with Bachmeyer et al., inappropriate mealtime behavior decreased, and acceptance increased for the remaining 3 children only after we matched differential reinforcement and extinction procedures to both escape and attention.
Subject(s)
Feeding and Eating Disorders of Childhood , Behavior Therapy , Child , Extinction, Psychological , Feeding Behavior , Feeding and Eating Disorders of Childhood/therapy , Humans , Meals , Reinforcement, PsychologyABSTRACT
We conducted functional analyses of the inappropriate mealtime behavior of 5 children diagnosed with feeding problems. Then, we compared the effects of differential and noncontingent reinforcement, and the relative effects of escape extinction with and without differential or noncontingent reinforcement, when escape extinction appeared necessary. Both reinforcement procedures were effective without escape extinction to treat food refusal for 1 child, but only differential reinforcement was effective without escape extinction to treat the child's liquid refusal. Escape extinction was necessary for 4 of 5 children. The addition of positive reinforcement resulted in beneficial effects (i.e., more stable acceptance, decreased inappropriate mealtime behavior or negative vocalizations) with 3 of 4 children. With escape extinction, differential reinforcement was more effective to treat food refusal for 2 children and noncontingent reinforcement was more effective for 1 child.
Subject(s)
Behavior Therapy/methods , Feeding and Eating Disorders of Childhood/therapy , Reinforcement, Psychology , Child, Preschool , Extinction, Psychological , Female , Humans , Infant , MaleABSTRACT
Investigators have evaluated two procedural variations for conducting a functional analysis of inappropriate mealtime behavior exhibited by children with feeding problems. One method involves prompting bites only in the escape condition (e.g., Najdowski et al., 2008). Another method involves prompting bites across all conditions (e.g., Piazza et al., 2003). We assessed the food refusal of 3 children diagnosed with a feeding disorder by comparing the two variations. The two methods resulted in different outcomes for 2 of 3 children. Prompting bites only in the escape condition identified a single function (i.e., escape). Prompting bites across all conditions identified multiple functions (i.e., escape and attention). We then examined the relative effects of extinction procedures (individually and in combination) to determine the validity of each method. Results of the treatment evaluation suggested that the procedural variation that failed to identify an attention function for 2 of 3 children produced false negative findings.
