institute for applied behavior analysis the positive practices

I N S T I T U T E F O R A P P L I E D B E H A V I O R A N A L Y S I S

1

P O S I T I V EPR A C T I C E S

THE

N E W S L E T T E R

A quarterly publication dedicated to the advancement of positive practices in the field of challenging behaviorVolume II • Number 1 ISSN 1083-6187 • October 1996

Motivational AnalysisThomas J. Willis and Gary W. LaVigna, Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis,Los Angeles, CA

IntroductionIf we were able to get a show of hands, we would venture to say

that every one of you reading this article has used or is usingreinforcement as part of a support plan for one of your consumers.

The use of reinforcement may be either to increase the person’saccess to a high density of reinforcement and, accordingly, theirquality of life, or, perhaps, as an incentive in a formal schedule of

reinforcement. We would also venture to say that one of yourfrustrations has been that the use of reinforcement sometimes justdoesn’t seem to work. The consumer may take the reinforcer whenit is provided, but its availability doesn’t seem to influence his or herbehavior.

Contingency Management. Since the1950’s, considerable research has beendevoted to identifying the Rules ofEffective Reinforcement. Manypeople who design reinforcementplans have not been taught these basicrules. They need to be revisited.Barbara is not unlike many of the

people who have been referred to us bycommunity agencies. She has a historyof physical aggression and property de-struction that occurs in the context ofwhat has been termed “tantrums.” Sheactually has a fairly good assessment inplace and the support plan is based on thefindings of the assessment. Some of theelements of the plan include an improvedquality of life, a structured, visual dailyschedule, communication training, teach-ing community activities, and reinforce-ment for the absence of the problem be-haviors as well as reinforcement for alter-native behaviors. Reinforcement involvesfrequent “social praise” for followingdirections as well as small edible treatsfor the absence of the problem behaviorson an hourly basis. The communicationThere are a number of reasons why

the events identified as potential rein-forcers may not work. Here are onlysome of the reasons we have discoveredin our clinical experiences.• Not Enough. Events identified as

potential reinforcers may not be ef-fective because enough is not beingprovided to influence the person’sbehavior.

• Too Much. Reinforcement may looseits effectiveness because it is avail-able in amounts that produce a satia-tion effect, in which a person’s interestin that reinforcement is not maintained.

• Not Individualized. Events identifiedas potential reinforcers may not havebeen effective because the event wasnot individualized. That is, a group ofevents had been identified by theagency as things that they could af-ford, or things they had available atthe time, without regard to theindividual’s personal preferences.

• Mistaken Belief. Another reason forthe failure may be the mistaken beliefthat everyone is motivated by praiseand edibles. Praise and edibles may beimportant for some, but not to others.

• Failure to Follow the Basic Rules of

C o n t e n t s

Motivational Analysis ........................... 1Editors’ Note ......................................... 2Psychometric Characteristics ofEvaluation Instruments forBehavioral Assessment Reportsand Intervention Plans ......................... 3Definition of a Problem Behavior ..... 15Procedural Protocols ......................... 171996 Summer Institute Participants . 20Profiles in Courage ............................ 21Alphabetical Index of Volume I ......... 23Resources ........................................... 24

Continued on page 9

P O S I T I V E P R A C T I C E S • V O L U M E I I • N U M B E R 1 • O C T O B E R 1 9 9 6

2

Positive Practices

PublisherInstitute for Applied Behavior Analysis

A Psychological Corporation

Co-EditorsGary W. LaVigna and Thomas J. Willis

Managing EditorJohn Q. Marshall, Jr.

Institute for Applied Behavior AnalysisGary W. LaVigna, PhD, Clinical DirectorThomas J. Willis, PhD, Assoc. Director

Service to Employ PeopleJulia F. Shaull, LCSW, MSW

Director of Supported EmploymentStacy L. Daniels, MA

Asst. Director Supported EmploymentSusan Caraway

Manager - Los AngelesAyndrea LaVigna

Manager - Ventura CountyKerry Costello, MA

Manager - West Los AngelesLeilah Sadd

Manager - North Los AngelesPatricia Speelman, MA

Manager - Orange County

Social/Community Integration andParticipation

Maryam Abedi, PhDDirector of Supported Living

Melissa ShapiroSupervisor - North Los Angeles

Ellen J. Lewis, PhDManager - Ventura County

Lori LeakSupervisor - Ventura County

Cheryl Stroll-Reisler, MAManager - Los Angeles

IABA - GeorgiaDiane Sabiston, MEd

Senior Manager - Georgia

Professional Training ServicesJohn Q. Marshall, Jr., MEd

Director of Professional Training ServicesSouth Carolina

AdministrationJay RavensComptroller

Robert H. SheltonDirector of Human Resourcesand Administrative Services

Copyright 1996 by:Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis

5777 West Century Blvd. #675Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA

(310) 649-0499

All rights reserved. No portion of this newslettermay be reproduced by any means without theexpress written permission of the Institute for

Applied Behavior Analysis.

Positive Practices (ISSN 1083-6187) is aquarterly publication of the Institute for AppliedBehavior Analysis. Individual issues are $10.00

each. Subscriptions are $25.00 per year fordelivery within the US and $40.00 per year fordelivery outside of the US. For subscription

information, change of address or information onclassified advertisements contact: John Marshall;IABA; 6169 St. Andrews Rd. #123; Columbia,

SC 29212-3146 USA; (803) 731-8597.

Individuals wishing to contribute articles orletters to the publication are requested to contactGary LaVigna or Thomas Willis; IABA; 5777West Century Blvd. #675; Los Angeles, CA

90045 USA; (310) 649-0499.

Editors’ Note…Here we go with year two of Positive Practices. We are very

pleased to include in this issue a

contribution from Paula Miskuly,

one of the participants in the two

week training institute we provided

in Montana two years ago. We are

also especially pleased to include

the results of a research study car-

ried out by Heike Ballmaier. As

part of her doctoral research, Dr.

Ballmaier investigated the reliabil-

ity and validity of the instrument

we developed for evaluating as-

sessment reports and recommended

support plans. As many of you

know, we use this instrument in many of our training, research and

quality assurance activities. We think you will find her report

interesting and relevant.

We also include a picture taken

at this year’s Summer Institute in

Los Angeles. Although this was

the 8th Annual Summer Institute,

this is the first time we had a group

picture taken of all the partici-

pants, faculty and support staff.

We can kick ourselves for that, but

look for subsequent pictures in the

years ahead.

Gary W. LaVigna andThomas J. WillisCo-editors

Gary W. LaVigna, PhDClinical Director

Thomas J. Willis, PhDAssociate Director


3

Psychometric Characteristics ofEvaluation Instruments for BehavioralAssessment Reports and InterventionPlans

Heike I. Ballmaier, Gary W. LaVigna, Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis,Los Angeles, CAKathi Borden, Robert P. Gelhart, Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, CAThomas J. Willis, Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA

Editors’ Note: Dr. Ballmaier completed her doctoral work at PepperdineUniversity in Los Angeles. She first become interested in our work during aninternship she spent with us as part of her graduate program. We were verypleased when she decided to carry out her doctoral research around an area of ourwork. Specifically, she decided to investigate the reliability and validity of one ofthe tools we developed for supporting our training, research, and quality assuranceactivities. We were excited to learn of her results. We were also very impressedwith her clinical skills and consider ourselves fortunate that upon graduation sheaccepted a position with IABA. If you have any question about the study you areabout to read, write and let us know.

AbstractAn Assessment Evaluation Instrument (AEI) and an Intervention

Evaluation Instrument (IEI) were developed to evaluate the qualityof assessment reports and intervention plans generated to help

support individuals who have challenging behavior associated withtheir developmental disabilities. The purpose of this study was toinvestigate the test-retest reliability, interrater reliability, and crite-

rion validity of these instruments. Pearson r correlation coefficientswere all significant at the p<.01 level for the three analyses. With

psychometric integrity, such instruments can be useful for settingprofessional standards, for professional training, and for treatmentutility research, which investigates the extent to which assessment

can contribute to good treatment planning and implementation, andultimately to better outcomes for people.

ment outcomes (Ciminero, Calhoun, &Adams, 1986; Goldfried, 1979; Hayes,Nelson, & Jarrett, 1987; Matson &Mulick, 1983; Nelson & Hayes, 1979). Ifan assessment device, distinction, or strat-egy can be shown to positively influencetreatment outcome, that device, distinc-tion, or strategy has treatment utility(Hayes, Nelson, & Jarrett, 1987).

While the fundamental role of assess-ment and functional analysis in behav-ioral intervention represents a hallmarkin the field of applied behavior analysis(Kanfer & Saslow, 1969; Schwartz,Goldiamond, & Howe, 1975), there ispresently no evaluation instrument de-signed to rate the quality of a behavioralassessment or intervention plan, nor thequality of decision making that would beneeded to produce durable treatment out-comes. Such instruments, if available,could be useful in treatment utility re-search, in professional training, and insetting and maintaining professional stan-dards.

The Assessment Evaluation Instru-ment (AEI) and Intervention EvaluationInstrument (IEI) (Willis & LaVigna,1990) were developed with the goal ofproviding formalized measures of thecompleteness of behavioral assessmentreports and intervention plans. An out-line of the content areas evaluated by theAEI and the IEI is shown in Table 1 (page4). Versions of these evaluation instru-ments have been published (Willis andLaVigna, 1990; LaVigna, Willis, Shaull,Abedi, & Sweitzer, 1994) and there isconsiderable support for their content(e.g., Carr, 1977, 1979, 1988; Carr &Durand, 1985a, 1985b; Carr & McDowell,1980; Carr, Newsom, & Binkoff, 1976,1980; Ciminero et al., 1986; Cooper,Heron, & Heward, 1987; Kanfer &Saslow, 1969; LaVigna & Donnellan,1986; Schwartz et al., 1975). However,their psychometric characteristics haveyet to be determined.

Crucial to the usefulness of the twoinstruments would be a test of their reli-ability and validity. The purpose of thisstudy was to carry out this test. Specifi-cally, this research investigated the test-retest reliability, interrater reliability, andcriterion validity of the AEI and IEI, as wellas the relatedness of these two instruments.

Behavioral assessment constitutes animportant type of evaluation for develop-mentally disabled people. It differs fromother types of psychological assessment

in that the quality of behavioral assess-ment is determined mainly by its contri-bution to the design of appropriate inter-vention procedures and beneficial treat-


4

Assessment Evaluation InstrumentI. General Format

A. FormatB. Identifying Information

II. Reason(s) for ReferralA. Source of ReferralB. Referral BehaviorsC. Key Social Agents’ Reasons

for Referral and PossibleDiscrepancies

III. Data SourceIV. Description of Services

A. Service SettingsB. Types of ServicesC. Date ProvidedD. Duration

V. Background InformationA. Learner DescriptionB. Living ArrangementsC. Day SettingD. Health and Medical StatusE. Previous or Current Services

VI. Functional AnalysisA. Description of the Problem

BehaviorB. History of the ProblemC. Environmental (Ecological)

AnalysisD. Antecedent AnalysisE. Consequence AnalysisF. Impressions and Analysis of

MeaningVII. Motivational Analysis

A. Method of AnalysisB. List of Potential ReinforcersC. Prioritization of Potential

ReinforcersVIII. Mediator Analysis

A. Description of AgentsB. Estimate of Abilities

Intervention Evaluation InstrumentI. Long-Range GoalsII. Short-Term Behavioral Objectives

A. Label of Target BehaviorB. Decrease, Maintain, or

IncreaseC. Degree of ChangeD. Time Interval

III. Data CollectionA. MethodsB. Reliability

IV. Intervention ProceduresA. Environmental ChangesB. Positive Programming

1. General Skills2. Functionally Equivalent

Skills3. Functionally Related Skills4. Coping Skills

C. Direct Treatment StrategiesD. Reactive StrategiesE. Staff Development

V. Comments and RecommendationsA. Anticipated DifficultiesB. Additional Resources and/or

Services RequestedC. Strategies for Evaluating

Outcomes

Table 1 - Outline of Content AreasEvaluated by the AssessmentEvaluation Instrument (AEI) and theIntervention Evaluation Instrument(IEI)

Method

MaterialsThis study involved the AEI and IEI

evaluation of 150 reports from two agen-cies that provide services to developmen-tally disabled clients, 88 from one and 62from the other. Criteria for inclusion ofreports consisted of each having bothassessment and intervention sections, aswell as addressing at least two targetbehaviors in the assessment report andattached intervention plan. Five raterswere recruited to test the reliability andvalidity of the two evaluation instrumentsunder investigation. Careful procedureswere used to ensure that ratings wereindependent, raters were qualified andrater bias was kept at a minimum in theevaluation of reports. The total pool of150 study reports was randomly dividedinto three sets of 50 cases. For each of thereliability and validity procedures, a setof 50 reports was given to the raters.

Test-Retest ReliabilityTest retest reliability is a measure of

consistency over time. It is obtained bygiving the same test twice to the samegroup of persons with a time lapse be-tween administrations (Werner & Stew-ard, 1984). In the present research, a rater(Rater 1) was randomly assigned to par-ticipate in the test-retest reliability of theAEI and IEI instruments. The raters wereconsidered as competent and ready tobegin the study when agreement betweentheir scores and the investigator’s equaledor bettered an 80% agreement for fivereports scored in succession. Followingtraining and a demonstrated level of com-petence, Rater 1 proceeded to score 50reports using the AEI and IEI scoringinstruments. Monitoring of the rater con-sisted of checking for fatigue effects anddigression from the instruments’ scoringcriteria. Specifically, the investigatorsampled one in every five reports rated.If the discrepancy between the rater andthe investigator increased in incrementsof more than five points between moni-toring, the rater was observed to indicatefatigue effects and asked to resume onanother day. Alternatively, the occur-rence of digression from the instruments’

scoring criteria resulted in the rater scor-ing another training report to demon-strate competency in using the instru-ments before resuming the study reports.The raw scores for individual items onthe two evaluation instruments were col-lected by the investigator. The investiga-tor then summarized the total number of“+”’s or credits for each report. Follow-ing a three-week interval, Rater 1 scoredthe same reports for the second time.Monitoring and feedback proceeded aswith the initial scoring of reports. Theraw scores were collected and the totalnumber of “+”’s were summarized by theinvestigator. These summations weresaved for subsequent analysis of the in-struments’ test-retest reliability.

The test-retest reliability coefficientfor both the AEI and IEI was calculated.The actual items which received credit(“+”) from Rater 1 on the first evaluationof the reports was compared with theactual items which received credit (“+”)from Rater 1 in the repeat evaluation.Since the AEI and IEI data were treatedseparately, this study generated two test-retest reliability coefficients, one for eachevaluation instrument. A scatter plot wasused to check for the appropriateness ofusing a parametric test, and the PearsonProduct-Moment Correlation Coefficientwas used to calculate the magnitude ofthe relationship between the test and theretest scores.

Interrater ReliabilityInterrater reliability provides a mea-

sure of consistency of agreement acrossobservers or scorers. When the scoringof an instrument requires the subjectivejudgment of a rater, it is necessary to havesome estimate of the level of agreementamong scorers who are supposedly usingthe same set of scoring criteria (Werner &Steward, 1984). In this study, two raters(Rater 2 and Rater 3) were randomlyassigned to participate in the interraterreliability test of the AEI and IEI. Theseraters completed the training and demon-strated a level of competence prior toreceiving the study reports. The ratersappreciated that they were to rate thereports independently. Rater 2 and Rater3 then received the same 50 reports.Methods for training, monitoring and pro-


5

viding feedback proceeded as describedearlier. The individual raw scores werecollected from the two raters. The num-ber of “+”’s was summarized for eachrater’s reports. The two sets of summa-rized scores were then retained for subse-quent analysis of the instruments’interrater reliability.

Two interrater reliability coefficientswere computed. One was computed forthe AEI, by comparing the actual itemswhich received credit (“+”) for each re-port from Rater 2 with the actual itemswhich received credit (“+”) for each re-port from Rater 3. The interrater reliabil-ity coefficient for the IEI was obtained inthe same way. The data met the assump-tions for the use of a parametric test andthe Pearson Product Moment CorrelationCoefficient was used to calculate themagnitude of the relationship betweenthe two raters’ scores for the evaluationinstruments.

Criterion ValidityCriterion related validity refers to the

extent to which an instrument relates toan appropriate criterion that is externalto, but not part of the test itself (Garret &Woodworth, 1960). In order to measurethe criterion-related validity of the AEIand IEI, two raters (Rater 4 and Rater 5)were employed. Rater 5 was selected forhis professional credentials, his practiceas a behavior specialist, and his utiliza-tion as a behavior specialist by respon-sible state agencies.

The method for collecting, recording,and monitoring for Rater 4 followed theprocedures described for the other raters.In contrast, Rater 5 engaged in a practicesession of rating ten reports to assist infamiliarizing himself with two separaterating scales. These involved Rater 5’sclinical impressions of completeness ofreports, which were quantified by utiliz-ing the format of two 5-point rating scales,designed specifically for the purposes ofthis study. The practice session also af-forded Rater 5 the opportunity to gainawareness of the range of reports he couldexpect to find among the actual sample inthis research.

Following this orientation, the twoscales provided separate measures: (a)the completeness of an assessment report

and, (b) the completeness of a behaviorintervention plan. Both scales used aLikert type design, ranging from 1 (un-satisfactory) to 5 (excellent). For eachreport, Rater 5 was required to circle thenumbers on the two rating scales: onescale score reflecting the completenessof the assessment section, and one scalereflecting the completeness of the inter-vention plan. Monitoring of Rater 5proceeded with the investigator and therater sharing feedback with one anotherto ensure that the standard rater defini-tions employed by the expert stayed con-sistent throughout the course of this re-search. In summary, the two sets ofscores for each report were collected bythe investigator and retained for subse-quent analysis.

Two criterion validity coefficientswere computed. One was computed forthe AEI, by correlating the total credits(“+”) for each report from Rater 4, withthe ratings for each report by the expertrater (Rater 5) who used the 5-point,criterion-rating scale. The criterion va-lidity coefficient for the IEI was obtainedin the same way. The data met the as-sumptions for the use of a parametric testand the Pearson Product-Moment Corre-lation Coefficient was used to calculatethe significance of the relationship ofscores from each of the AEI and IEIinstruments with an external measure-ment of completeness (the rating scale).

Analysis of the Relatedness Betweenthe AEI and IEI Ratings

All the raw data scores obtainedthroughout the entire study were utilized

to measure the magnitude of relatednessbetween the ratings produced by the twoinstruments. This provided the investi-gator with a total of 250 scored assess-ment reports (using the AEI) and 250intervention plan reports (using the IEI).The raw data obtained from Rater 5 whoused the criterion rating scale were ex-cluded from this data set. The number of“+” scores obtained for every report evalu-ation using the AEI instrument (n=250)was correlated with the number of “+”scores obtained for every report evalua-tion using the IEI (n= 250). The data metthe assumptions for the use of a paramet-ric test and the Pearson Product-MomentCorrelation Coefficient was used to cal-culate the magnitude of the relationshipbetween the ratings produced by the twoinstruments.

ResultsTable 2 presents the correlation coef-

ficients obtained for the measures of test-retest reliability, interrater reliability, andcriterion validity and the level of signifi-cance achieved for each. Correlationcoefficients were based on pairs of rawscores consisting of sums of items checkedpresent in reports on the AEI and IEI.

Test-Retest ReliabilityThis was assessed by asking Rater 1 to

rate 50 reports at two times separated bya three-week period. As can be seen inTable 2, Pearson r correlation coeffi-cients were .97 for the AEI and .96 for theIEI. The reliability coefficients calcu-lated on each instrument were found to be

Table 2 - Reliability and Validity Measures on the Two Instruments

AEI IEI

Results Pearson r Significance Pearson r Significance

Test-retest Reliability

0.97 0.01 0.96 0.01

Interrater Reliability

0.82 0.01 0.46 0.01

Criterion Validity

0.54 0.01 0.43 0.01


6

statistically significant at p<0.01. Thus,the extent to which items checked presenton each instrument could be generalizedover different occasions appeared to behigh.

Interrater ReliabilityInterrater reliability was assessed by

asking Raters 2 and 3 to score a differentset of 50 reports independently. Pearsonr correlation coefficients were .82 for the

AEI and .46 for the IEI. Both reliabilitycoefficients obtained were found to bestatistically significant at p<0.01. Re-sults indicated that scoring judgmentswere consistent on the AEI across raters.The reliability coefficient on the IEI, how-ever, reflected a larger number ofinterscorer differences.

Criterion ValidityThe measurement of criterion validity

involved correlating AEI raw score rat-ings obtained by Rater 4 with raw scoresobtained by Rater 5 using an independent5-point rating scale for evaluating assess-ment reports. A similar procedure wasfollowed for calculating the validity co-efficient for the second instrument bycorrelating IEI raw score ratings obtainedby Rater 4 with raw scores obtained byRater 5 on a 5-point rating scale for evalu-ating intervention plan. A third sample of50 assessment reports was provided forthis analysis.

Pearson r correlation coefficients were.54 for the AEI and .43 for the IEI. Bothvalidity coefficients calculated were alsofound to be statistically significant atp<0.01. As noted previously for reliabil-

ity coefficients, agreement on the com-pleteness of reports appeared to be slightlyhigher on the AEI than on the IEI. Sincethe validity of an instrument is affectedby its reliability, the lower interrater reli-ability coefficient indicated earlier forthe IEI might have also lowered the crite-rion validity of this instrument. Gener-ally speaking, it seemed likely that scor-ing criteria were less clear on the IEI,reflecting greater ambiguity and produc-

ing more subjective judg-ments in scoring acrossraters, as measured by theabsolute value of the cor-relation coefficients ob-tained. However, a .01level of significance wasachieved by both.

The Relationshipbetween AEI And IEIRaw Scores

The degree of relation-ship between the scoresobtained on the behavioral

assessment reports and the associated be-havioral intervention plans was deter-mined by correlating AEI and IEI rawscores on a total of 250 scored protocols.The correlation coefficient obtained was.42. This value was significant at p<.01.These results are not displayed in Table 2.

DiscussionThis study involved the evaluation of

the psychometric properties of the AEIand IEI by conducting four major analy-ses: test-retest reliability, interrater reli-ability, criterion validity, and correlatingraw scores obtained from the instrumentswith each other. Results generally indi-cated that the test-retest reliability forboth instruments and the interrater reli-ability for the AEI were statistically sig-nificant and within an acceptable rangefor reliability coefficients (e.g.,>.80;Anastasi, 1988).

The interrater reliability coefficient,though statistically significant, droppedto .46 on the IEI. When the interraterreliability coefficient for the IEI was cal-culated separately for raw scores obtainedfrom each agency, a significant differ-ence was observed in correlation coeffi-

cients measured for each agency. Forraw scores obtained for reports fromAgency 1, the coefficient was .82. Forraw scores obtained for reports fromAgency 2, the coefficient was .07.

An analysis of raw scores on reportsfrom Agency 2 revealed that 17 out of 19scores given by one rater were generallylower than scores provided by the otherrater. Primarily due to the fact that re-ports from Agency 2 did not follow theorganizational structure incorporated intothe instrument, it may have been difficultto find the information called for on theinstrument since it would not have neces-sarily appeared under the same headingas identified on the AEI. This observa-tion was confirmed by Rater 3 whosescores were generally lower on reportsfrom Agency 2 than the scores of Rater 2involved in this analysis. Specifically,Rater 3 stated that it was difficult to usethe IEI for identifying and evaluatinginformation in reports from Agency 2,despite the impressions that complete-ness of general report content appearedsimilar across agencies.

The training procedures used in thisresearch appear to have influenced thediscrepancy in interrater reliability coef-ficients calculated for each agency. Train-ing involved the evaluation of four re-ports from Agency 1 but only one reportfrom Agency 2. The limited exposure toevaluating differently organized interven-tion plans may not have affected the rat-ings of reports from Agency 1 but pro-duced variable results on the ratings ofreports from Agency 2.

One could generally conclude that theIEI might be used more easily and accu-rately with report evaluations that followthe organizational structure of the instru-ment itself. Based on the present results,training procedures for raters may needto be expanded to include a carefullyselected set of reports that are equallycomplete in content but reflect differ-ences in their organizational structure.This would reduce later disagreements inreport evaluations across raters. In addi-tion, scoring criteria may need to be re-vised on the IEI to specify that the infor-mation to be evaluated may appear undera different section or heading than iscalled for on the instrument.

Results generally indicatedthat the test-retest reliabilityfor both instruments and theinterrater reliability for theAEI were statisticallysignificant…


7

Results further revealed that criterionvalidity coefficients were .54 for the AEIand .43 for the IEI. These coefficientswere statistically significant and reflecteda moderate level of agreement on com-pleteness of reports across each of theinstruments under investigation and the5-point rating scale.

A number of factors may have re-duced criterion validity coefficients cal-culated for the two instruments. First,criterion validity typically asks whetherthe instrument under investigation corre-lates with other relevant measures. Usu-ally, these other variables are alreadyestablished as valid measures. In thisresearch, the expert opinion of reportsexpressed by Rater 5 on the rating scales,represented the criterion measure con-ducted independently from report evalu-ations on the two instruments. A panel ofexperts or one certified behavior analyst,rather than one well-experienced raterwho participated in this research withoutthe official qualifications of a behaviorspecialist, may have enriched the validityof the independent ratings of reports.

Second, the moderate agreementfound in ratings of reports across examin-ers may have been partly due to difficul-ties encountered during monitoring ofRater 4 who conducted report evalua-tions on the two instruments. Duringmonitoring, that rater had to be retrainedtwice because agreement measures ob-tained between the researcher and therater had dropped to a level below .70.The monitoring of that one rater alsoindicated greater overall discrepancieswith the researcher’s ratings than wasfound for any other rater.

Third, it appeared that the checklist ofitems on the IEI was generally too shortto address all major components that areneeded to write a complete and compre-hensive multi-element treatment plan.Based on the expressed reaction of raters,scoring criteria seemed too global, lack-ing in a detailed breakdown of criteriathat define the presence or absence ofeach item in a written plan. The latterobservations are also reflected in a gen-eral trend towards lower reliability coef-ficients obtained for the IEI than thosecalculated for the AEI. Revisions of theIEI toward expanding its length and pro-

viding a more detailed explanation ofscoring criteria may enhance the reliabil-ity and validity of the instrument.

The final analysis of this researchinvolved the correlation between AEIand IEI raw scores. According to treat-ment utility research, the usefulness of anassessment device cannot be measuredagainst itself but must be investigated forits relevance in treatment planning (Hayeset al., 1989). The quality of a behavioralassessment report, if it has treatment util-ity, should therefore influence the qualityof the resulting intervention plan. Thefinal analysis of this research was basedon the assumption that the AEI results forthe behavioral assessment reports shouldbe directly proportional to the IEI resultsfor the corresponding intervention plans.Results of this analysis indicated that thecorrelation coefficient calculated was sta-tistically significant at p<.01.

There are two reasons for interpretingthe obtained correlation coefficient withcaution. First, the two sets of AEI and IEIscores did not reflect report evaluationsof independently obtained measures. In-stead, scores were based on reports writ-ten by one behavior specialist who con-ducted and wrote both assessment andtreatment plans. Consequently, the cor-relation coefficient measured betweenpairs of scores on the two instrumentsprovided a preliminary measure of thetreatment utility of behavioralassessment reports for plansspecifying behavioral interven-tion strategies.

Second, results generallyrevealed more variable scor-ing on the IEI than on the AEI.Evaluations using the IEI ap-peared to have been influencedby the organizational structurein reports, due to the limita-tions in training discussed ear-lier on the interrater reliabilityfindings of the IEI. In addi-tion, insufficient instrument length and alack of detailed breakdown of scoringcriteria on the IEI may have influencedsome scoring inconsistencies across rat-ers. Revisions of training procedures andthe IEI, as well as two sets of separatelywritten reports may therefore need to beincorporated in the design of future treat-

ment utility research with the two instru-ments of interest. The present findingsare promising, however, in that the levelof completeness of assessment reportsappeared to be proportional to the com-pleteness of treatment plans.

ConclusionsIn summary, the correlation coeffi-

cients calculated for all four analyseswere found to be significant at p<.01.This means that, despite some limitationsin the present findings, it is possible togeneralize beyond the particular sampleof reports evaluated, to the larger popula-tion of reports that are written in theclinical field of applied behavior analysisand/or utilized for research purposes.Therefore, preliminary applications ofthe two instruments may move forwardin a number of ways.

The two instruments evaluated fortheir psychometric properties in this studycould be applied in clinical practice byenhancing accountability for effectiveservice provision to clients with develop-mental disabilities. By imposing a stan-dard and setting guidelines and expecta-tions for format, structure, and content inreport writing, the AEI and IEI serve todefine a standard by which reports couldbe evaluated for completeness, bothwithin agencies and across service pro-

viders. The use of the instruments inclinical practice, along with the enhance-ment of their construct validity, could bestrengthened further by designing a stan-dardized training package that assistspotential raters to familiarize themselveswith differences in level of content, com-pleteness, and different ways that infor-

The two instruments…couldbe applied in clinical

practice by enhancingaccountability for effective

service provision…


8

mation can be organized, as is typicallypracticed across agencies.

The AEI and IEI could further be usedto set goals and individualize instructionin the process of training psychologistsand other professionals who assume therole of a behavior specialist to undertakeassessments, and to determine whether

training goals have been met under pre-determined standards. To take this fur-ther, a separate formal future study indi-cating a significant difference betweenpretest and posttest scores when evaluat-ing progress in the training of profession-als would also contribute to the constructvalidity of the instruments, indicatingthat they do in fact evaluate the assess-ment and treatment planning for behaviorproblems exhibited by clients with devel-opmental disabilities.

Finally, applications of the AEI andIEI are potentially useful in treatmentutility research when investigating thetreatment utility of behavioral assessmentfor treatment planning (Hayes et al.,1987). Treatment utility research pro-posed in the literature typically involvesgroup comparison designs in which therelationship between assessment andtreatment is examined across groups.Results based on such group comparisonapproaches that identify relevant criteriafor treatment planning, and ultimatelytreatment outcome could be enhanced bythe use of measures with good reliabilityand validity to define groups. Groupexperimental research utilizing the AEIand IEI could also strengthen the con-struct-related validation of the instrumentsif they were indeed found useful for pur-poses of reliably differentiating and draw-ing conclusions across groups.

It is recommended that a trainingmanual be designed for using the AEI andthe IEI that contains the basic principlesof behavioral assessment and the designof treatment plans. Emphasis should beplaced on major definitions and termsthat are discussed in the scoring criteriaof the instruments, and examples should

be provided that illus-trate the use of scoringcriteria for evaluatingreports. A manual couldthus be designed to ad-dress judgment callsthat a rater typicallyneeds to make whenscoring reports.

A training manualfor the use of the AEIand IEI should furtherinclude a standardizedset of training reports

chosen and organized along the dimen-sions of varying content and organiza-tion. This would allow potential raters tofamiliarize themselves with differentiallycomplete reports, as well as differentways that information can be organizedas is typically practiced across agencies.Raters would be required to reach a speci-fied level of agreement on the trainingreports before they could proceed withthe actual ratings of reports for clinicalpractice or research purposes. Trainingprocedures that describe and illustratethe use of the instruments, together witha standardized set of reports that need tobe mastered during training, could en-hance the applicability and accurate useof the two instruments.

It is further recommended that scor-ing criteria be refined and the number ofitems on the IEI be expanded to improveclear and confident decision-making inthe evaluation of intervention plans. Anitem analysis should further be conductedon both instruments so that individualweak items can be identified and revisedaccordingly. Qualitative recommenda-tions for content and form of both instru-ments have already been conductedthrough informal interviews with thoseraters who used the AEI and IEI to evalu-ate reports. Their comments are describedin the original version of this study(Ballmaier, 1992) and could thus be ex-

amined for statistical verification in a fol-low-up item analysis of both instruments.

Finally, internal consistency data ofan instrument have been described asrepresenting potentially useful informa-tion for its construct validity (Anastasi,1988). Internal consistency correlationsrepresent measures of homogeneity. It istherefore recommended that the internalconsistency of the AEI and IEI be mea-sured, to collect further reliability data onthe instruments and to investigate theirhomogeneity as it contributes to con-struct validity. This could be accom-plished by correlating scores on indi-vidual items or sections of report evalua-tions with total credits on each instrument.

The AEI and IEI appear promising intheir potential to contribute psychometri-cally sound instruments for the purposeof evaluating behavioral assessment re-ports and intervention plans for individu-als challenged by a developmental disabil-ity and who also have behavior problems.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statisticalmanual of mental disorders (3rd edition). Washington, D.C.:Author.

Ballmaier, H. (1992). Psychometric characteristics of the behavioralassessment report and intervention plan evaluation instruments.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University, Malibu,California.

Carr, E. G. (1988). Functional equivalence as a mechanism of responsegeneralization. In R.H. Horner, G. Dunlap, & R.L. Koegel (Eds.),Generalization and maintenance. Life-style changes in appliedsettings (pp. 221-241). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co.

Carr, E. G. (1979). Teaching autistic children to use sign language:Some research issues. Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders, 9, 345-359.

Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious behavior: A reviewof some hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 800-816.

Carr, E.G., & Durand, V.M. (1985a). Reducing behavior problemsthrough functional communication training. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 18, 111-126.

Carr, E.G., & Durand, V.M. (1985b). The social-communicative basisof severe behavior problems in children. In S. Reiss, & R.R.Bootzin (Eds.), Theoretical issues in behavior therapy (pp. 219-254.). Orlando: Academic Press, Inc.

Carr, E.G., & McDowell, J.J. (1980). Social control of self-injuriousbehavior of organic etiology. Behavior Therapy, 11, 402-409.

Carr, E.G., Newsom, C.D., & Binkoff, J.A. (1976). Stimulus control ofself-destructive behavior in a psychotic child. Journal of AbnormalChild Psychology, 4, 139-153.

Carr. E.G., Newsom, C.D., & Binkoff, J.A. (1980). Escape as a factorin the aggressive behavior of two retarded children. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 13, 101-117.

Ciminero, A.R., Calhoun, K.S., & Adams, H.E. (1986). Handbook ofbehavioral assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (1987). Applied BehaviorAnalysis. Columbus: Merril Publishing Company.

Garrett, H.E., & Woodworth, R.S. (1960). Statistics in psychology andeducation. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.

Goldfried, M.R. (1979). Behavioral assessment: Where do we go fromhere? Behavioral Assessment, 1, 19-22.

Hayes, S.C., Nelson, R.O., & Jarrett, R.B. (1989). The applicability oftreatment utility. American Psychologist, 44, 1242-1143.

Hayes. S.C., Nelson, R.O., & Jarrett, R.B. (1987). The treatment utilityof assessment. A functional approach to evaluating assessmentquality. American Psychologist, 42, 963-974.

Kanfer, F.H., & Saslow, G. (1969). Behavioral diagnosis. In C.M.Franks (Ed.), Behavior Therapy: Appraisal and status. New York:McGraw Hill.

LaVigna, G.W., & Donnellan, A.M. (1986). Alternatives to punishment:Solving behavior problems with non-aversive strategies. NewYork: Irvington Publishers, Inc.

LaVigna, G.W., Willis, T.J., Shaull, J.F. Abedi, M., & Sweitzer, M.(1994). The Periodic Service Review: A Total Quality AssuranceSystem for Human Services and Education (Appendix F). Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Matson, J.L., & Mulick, J.A. (1983). Handbook of mental retardation.New York: Pergamon Press.

Nelson, R.O., & Hayes, S.C. (1979). Some current dimensions ofbehavioral assessment. Behavioral Assessment, 1, 1-16.

Schwartz, A., Goldiamond, I., & Howe, M.W. (1975). Social casework:A behavioral approach. New York: Columbia University Press.

Werner, E.A., & Steward, B.J. (1984). Assessing individuals. NewYork: Guilford.

Willis, T.J., & LaVigna, G.W. (1990). Behavioral Assessment Reportand Intervention Plan: Evaluation Instrument. Los Angeles:Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis.

The AEI and IEI appearpromising…for the purpose ofevaluating behavioralassessment reports andintervention plans…


9

training seems to be proceeding well andshe seems to be learning the communityskills that have been identified. But, theproblem behaviors, i.e., “tantrums,” havenot really been impacted. She takes thereinforcers when they are provided, butdoes not seem to be “delighted” whenthey are made available. She sometimesdoesn’t eat the treats and sometimes justdoesn’t pay attention to what is beingoffered. This has been going on for yearsin one form or another. What may behappening?

To answer this question, we wouldlike you to answer these: “What makes usbelieve that she would be willing to giveup her tantrums for a small edible treatevery hour when her tantrums commandimmediate attention and environmentalchange?” Further, “how important wouldsuch treats be to her if she has access toher own refrigerator and she can fix her-self a snack anytime she wants, and shehas a choice of what she wants to preparefor each of her meals, including desert?”“What makes you believe that the peoplewe serve generally would be willing togive up behaviors such as tantrums, selfinjury, property destruction, and the like,for a smile, a pat on the back, an edibletreat, a nickel, or a token, when theirbehavior serves such powerful ends forthem?” A person may be described asenjoying or liking what is being given;but “will they be willing to work for theidentified reinforcers?” (This is furthercomplicated if we are independently pro-viding a high density of attention, praise,affection, enjoyable activities, frequentaccess to favorite foods, etc., simply toassure that the person enjoys a warm,supporting and nurturing interpersonalenvironment and enjoyable life-style, notbecause it has been earned, but ratherbecause this is a basic need that every-body has and deserves.)

Let’s take a personal example thatvery likely will apply to all of us. Wewould venture to say that all of you enjoymoney. Indeed, your days are usuallyspent in the pursuit of money throughyour work. OK, here is a problem foryou. A friend or acquaintance is willingto offer you money to wash his car. How

many of you would be willing to wash hiscar for $1.00? $5.00? I would bet thatyou would not consider it. But, here is thedilemma; you like money, so why are younot willing to work for it? How about ifhe offered you $10,000? There would bea stampede getting to the car; as a matterof fact, you would probably offer to washit a few extra times for free. (Of course,the dynamics would be totally different ifyou had just been informed the nightbefore that you had just inherited$5,000,000 from a long forgotten uncle.)

Yes, you like money, but it requires acertain amount to “activate” us to action.It may also take a certain amount toimprove our quality of life sufficiently toinfluence our behavior. Perhaps this isthe problem with Barbara. She may beinterested sometimes in what is avail-able, but not be willing to work to achievethe rewards. Thus, a key in the effective-ness of reinforcement as part of a supportplan may not only be WHAT is identi-fied; but also HOW MUCH is presentedor provided, and in the context of WHATDENSITY OF REINFORCEMENT .

In this article, we will discuss some ofthe issues and methods around identify-ing effective reinforcement. This is notnew information; but we would ventureto say that much of it has been forgotten.Vance and Marilyn Hall (1980) wrote ofthe importance of reinforcement “…thesystematic use of reinforcement is themost powerful tool instrengthening or teachingnew behavior… Some per-sons have difficulty select-ing and delivering rein-forcers and are disap-pointed in the results oftheir behavior managementefforts.” In other words,identifying powerful re-wards to facilitate behav-ior change is important ,whether this information is used to struc-ture formal schedules of reinforcement toprovide an incentive for the person toengage in a variety of alternative behav-iors, in lieu of the target behavior, or it isused to increase the person’s access to ahigh density of noncontingent reinforce-ment and to improve their overall qualityof life.

Methods for IdentifyingPotential Reinforcers

Ask the Person/Ask OthersA very basic strategy, but sometimes

overlooked, is to ask the person whatinterests he has, what she would like tohave, what he would like to do, what shewould like to earn, and where he wouldlike to go. We asked one of our consum-ers, a young man with the problems asso-ciated with autism, to write down thethings he would like to earn as part of hissupport plan. He asked for a pencil, tooka steno pad, and nearly filled the pad withthings he considered worth working to-ward. Interestingly, over 90 percent ofwhat he wrote was junk food. As part ofasking, some creative strategies may beneeded. For example, ask “If you had $10what would you buy?” “If you could goanywhere for dinner, where would yougo?” “How much money would you liketo have each day?”

Of course, it is important to ask thosewho are with the person often what theconsumer likes. Not just one person, butseveral if it is possible. This is importantsince what may be reinforcing may differin the presence of different persons. Thisis not new to you. It is not surprising thatsome kids may not want to play basket-ball or surf with mom, since these may

not be something she does or does well(NOTE: This is not meant to be sexist.We do know some women who are excel-lent at both). Some specific questions wemight ask of someone about potentialreinforcers include the following:• What does he do often?• Where does he like (ask) to go?• Who does she prefer to be with?

Continued from page 1

“…the systematic use ofreinforcement is the most

powerful tool in strengtheningor teaching new behavior…"


10

• What does he request most often?• What does she purchase when she has

money?• Where does she request to go when

she has the choice of where to eat?

QuestionnairesAnother quick strategy for identify-

ing many potential reinforcers would in-volve giving several people structuredquestionnaires to complete. For example,Tharp and Wetzel (1969) developed theMediation-Reinforcer Incomplete Blank(MRB). The MRB contains 34 incom-plete sentences that a person would com-

plete, such as “The thing I like to do bestwith my (mother/father) is ____.” “I willdo almost anything to get ____.”

The Adult and Child ReinforcementInventories (Willis, LaVigna, and Don-nellan, 1993) is based on the originalwork of Cautela and Kastenbaum (1967).They contain over 200 items that a personwould rate on a five-point-scale from“not at all” to “very much.” They alsocontain sections in which the respondentwould describe what a consumer “does”more than 5, 10, 15, and 20-times a day.In a third section, the respondent is askedto rate how much time the consumerengages in common activities such as“watching television,” “listening to mu-sic,” sleeping,” “reading,” etc. A finalsection asks the person to answer ques-tions such as “What is the person’s mostfavorite thing to do?” “What does theperson ask for most often.”

The advantage of questionnaires andsurveys is that they give a good startingpoint for probing the effectiveness ofreinforcement. Those events that people

rate as “Not At All” are not the place tostart. Rather, if there are 10 or 20 itemsrated as “Much” and “Very Much” thesemay be the items first used as contingentor noncontingent reinforcement.

Observe the PersonObserving a person at times through

the day can be an effective way of identi-fying potential reinforcers. The assump-tion here is that if a person does it oftenit may be a potential reinforcer. The basisof this was presented in 1959 by DavidPremack. He noted that the behaviors aperson engages in frequently can be used

to reinforce behaviorsthat occur at a low fre-quency. Thus, he wasable to reduce the un-manageable behavior ofnursery school childrenby giving them the op-portunity to run aroundand yell and scream (highfrequency behavior) ifthey sat quietly for shortperiods of time (low fre-quency behavior). So,the questions to be an-swered here include

“How much time does the person spendin various activities throughout the day?”“How often during the hour, day, week,month does the person use the object orengage in the activity?” How often doesthe person request, demand, argue forvarious objects, foods, activities, orevents?”

Here are some methods for observingthat we have found to be useful:1. The Asking Log. Sometimes, when

you ask kids what they would like tohave or work for, they freeze. Theyjust can’t think of a thing. So, we askthe parents to keep a pad of paper andpencil close to them when they arewith their kids. We ask that they listento their kids when they are driving,when they are watching TV (espe-cially commercials) and when theyare walking in the mall. We ask themto write down what the kids ask for(e.g., “I want ____.) and what theydemand and tantrum over.

2. Structured Location Record. In class-rooms with small children, we have

found it sometimes useful to draw adiagram of the classroom; the majorareas (e.g., science, exploratory, art,etc.), seating arrangements, mats, eat-ing area, teacher location, aide loca-tion, etc. This can be done veryquickly. A time period for observingis then selected (e.g., every 30 sec-onds). Subsequently, every 30 sec-onds throughout the observation time,the observer puts a “/” on the diagramat the point where the student is lo-cated at that moment. This may behelpful in identifying a location wheresome potentially reinforcing eventmay be located.

3. Structured Observation Record. Simi-lar to the above example, we frequentlyask teachers and staff to observe theperson at regular intervals throughoutthe day for several days. Ten minuteshas been a good time period in ourexperience. At the end of each 10-minute period during the day, we askthat the following information be re-corded:

• Time.• Location. Where the person is at

the moment of the observation.• Persons. The people who are

present or close or interacting withthe person.

• Objects. The objects the person isholding, interacting with at the mo-ment of the observation.

• Activity. The activity, event (e.g.,math, pin ball) the person is en-gaged in at the moment of ob–servation.

• Behavior. The person’s reaction(e.g., smiling, intensely involved,appears nervous) at the moment ofthe observation.

• Other. Any significant observa-tion at the moment.

After a few hours of observation,then the records can be analyzed (Thisis very important!) to determine thelocations where he spends most of histime; the people she hangs aroundwith and seeks out most often; theobjects he interacts with most often;the activities she participates with mostoften.

The advantage ofquestionnaires and surveys isthat they give a good startingpoint for probing theeffectiveness of reinforcement.


11

Reinforcer SamplingWe can’t assume that just because a

child asks to do something that it is goingto be reinforcing. A child might thinkthat it would be a great idea, but may beunwilling to work for it or may be hesi-tant for lack of experience. Sulzer-Azaroffand Mayer (1991) describe Shirley who“was hesitant the first time she went wa-ter skiing, rode a roller coaster, and per-formed before an audience; but afterwardshe really began to enjoy these activi-ties.” The way this might be described isthat she didn’t know what she was miss-ing until she tried it. In other words, anevent may lack reinforcing properties untilthe person has an opportunity to “sample”it.

By providing a sample of the identi-fied event, it may now be used as contin-gent or noncontingent reinforcement.This is what Ayllon and Azrin (1968)established in their original research. Inaddition, by providing a small amount ofsomething that is already reinforcing,performance might be enhanced. This isperhaps best illustrated in the “freesamples” we receive in the mail and whentouring the super markets. In addition,reinforcer sampling might be used to es-tablish an event as reinforcing when it issituationally dependent. For example,we were working with a young man in hishome using Coca Cola as a reinforcer.We had determined that he would “doanything” to get the opportunity to drinka small amount of Coke. But at school,Coke was not working. An analysisshowed that at home we were deliveringthe Coke as “sips from the red can.” Atschool they were delivering Coke in “clearplastic cups.” Reinforcer sampling in-volved having him watch the Coke beingpoured from the can into the cup and thengiving him the opportunity to drink it(NOTE: Before this, he refused to drinkthe dark fluid in the clear plastic cups).Once he tasted the Coke from the clearplastic cup, the Coke was used as aneffective reinforcer.

Finally, the Reinforcer Sampling Rulestates: “Before using an event or stimu-lus as a reinforcer, require sampling ofthe reinforcer in the situation in which itis to be used” (See Sulzer-Azaroff andMayer, 1991).

Stimulus Preference MethodFor many, potential reinforcers may

be easily identified by asking the person(Barrett, 1962) or by exposing the personto an array of events and recording theduration or frequency of interaction witheach event (Quilitch, Christophersen, andRisley, 1977). But these strategies maybe less effective with people who havesevere disabilities.

Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, andPage (1985) evaluated a procedure foridentifying potential reinforcers withpeople who had a profound level of learn-ing difficulty. They began the study byidentifying the stimuli for which theywould determine preferences. There were16 different events including a mirror,light, song, beep, coffee, flower, juice,graham cracker, vibrator, fan, heatingpad, cool block, swing, rock, clap, andhug. Each item was presented individu-ally ten times in interspersed fashion.Approach was the sign of preference.Preferences were established clearly. Thesecond phase of the study set out to deter-mine whether the preferred events actu-ally acted as positive reinforcers for novelbehaviors. This was done by establishinga novel (new) response to be learned byeach participant (e.g., reach,raise hand, look, touch myhand, say eat). Each partici-pant had the opportunity toreceive a preferred or non-preferred stimulus as a con-sequence for engaging in thenew response. The resultsof the study clearly estab-lished that preferred eventsshowed in this way can actas reinforcers.

Choice MethodsAnother way to establish potential

reinforcers is to give people the opportu-nity to choose what they would like.There are a number of ways to do this:1. Multiple Choice. Using this method,

the person is repeatedly given the op-portunity to choose from an array ofpotential reinforcers. This strategyinvolves the following steps:• The first step is to identify an array

of events to be tested. These mightbe selected from interviews or from

questionnaires as described above.• The array of events is then pre-

sented repeatedly, perhaps 10 to20 times.

• The items are placed in front of theperson; or the person is taken towhere they are laid out.

• The person may be asked to “picksomething” or he or she may besimply given the opportunity toapproach and use.

• Choice can come in many forms.It will need to be determined indi-vidually for the person. For ex-ample, a person may approach andstand in front of the object. An-other person may just stare at it fora period of time. A person mayapproach and pick up the object.A person may point at an object.The form of approach will dependon the person’s abilities.

• Once the choice is made, the per-son is given a limited time to usewhat they have selected (e.g., acouple of minutes).

• During the session, once the choiceis made, other objects are removedwhile he or she uses the selecteditem.

It will be important to recordthe person’s choices. We use the“Reinforcer Preference Record.”For each trial, the following infor-mation is recorded:- The trial.- The number or name of the

reinforcer selected.- The time that the reinforcer was

used.- The person’s reactions to and

interactions with the item se-lected.

Sometimes, when using this strat-

…an event may lackreinforcing properties until

the person has anopportunity to “sample” it.


12

egy, the person chooses the same ob-ject or activity each time. In thisevent, after a few trials you may wantto eliminate this selection and replaceit with another.

2. Forced Choice. Using the 2-waychoice procedure, two items are pre-sented to the person at a time. Theperson is given 2-way choices amonga variety of events. Paclawsky andVollmer (1995) used thismethod to determine rein-forcers for children withdevelopmental disabilitieswho were also visually im-paired. They found thisprocedure to be superior tothe “preference” proceduredescribed above in deter-mining effective reinforc-ers. Indeed, they foundthat the Forced Choicemethod showed greater differentia-tion of preference among differentpotential reinforcers. They subse-quently confirmed that the ForcedChoice procedure accurately identi-fied reinforcers since they were usedto improve skill acquisition in thesecond part of the study.

Issues and Guidelines inthe Selection of PotentialReinforcersAge Appropriate Reinforcers

It is important to consider the person’schronological age when selecting rein-forcers. “Happy faces” for a teenagermay be insulting and numbers for a 2-year old may not be understood. But,don’t be dogmatic in this. In recent times,the tendency has been to eliminate allchild-like reinforcers from the lives ofadults. This is unfortunate since the itembeing removed may be the only event inwhich the person has interest or enjoys.

Contingent vs. NoncontingentReinforcement

Before establishing formal schedulesof reinforcement, we should consider in-creasing the person’s access to high den-sity, noncontingent reinforcement. We

recommend this for a number of reasons:1. As a general rule, a high density of

reinforcement is a setting event forlower rates of problem behavior and alow density of reinforcement is a set-ting event for higher rates of problembehavior.

2. Most of the people we work with havea lower density of reinforcement intheir lives than do their age peers who

do not face the challenge of a disabil-ity.

3. Most of the reinforcers in our lives areessentially noncontingent. For ex-ample, the desert we eat after a meal,the TV show we watch, the movie orrestaurant to which we go, the newarticle of clothing that we buy, thebook that we read, the people we seeand spend time with, the music welisten to, etc.The introduction of a high density of

noncontingent reinforcement goes di-rectly to our prime objective, i.e., im-proving the quality life of the people wesupport. If contingent reinforcement isto be used, it should represent reinforcersthat are above and beyond what that per-son would properly have noncontingentaccess to, given an already established,quality of life that is comparable to thequality of life shared by others of thatperson’s age, who are not challenged bya disability.

IndividualizedIn order for reinforcement to be effec-

tive, the person must “buy in.” In otherwords, the person must have an interest.We might have no interest in earning a“liver dinner.” But we might put outconsiderable effort for a one kilo steak atVlado’s Steak House in Melbourne, Aus-tralia (which we have done). We know

people on the other hand who wouldprefer the liver. The purpose of the as-sessment strategies discussed above wasto suggest ways to identify such individu-alized reinforcers.

Select Reinforcers That Will Be Used1. Consider the Mediator’s Philosophy.

There are many teachers and parentswho do not believe in using food as a

reinforcer. They believe that iffood is used; the person willbecome a “food junky.” Con-sequently, if you recommendfood as a contingent or non-contingent reinforcer it is un-likely that they will use it. Yourreinforcement plan will neverhave the chance to have animpact. Similarly, some pro-fessionals see contingent rein-forcement as “bribery.” One

way of handling these problems is toselect other forms of reinforcement.Another strategy is to re-educate themregarding the likelihood of a personbecoming a “food junky” and the dif-ference between contingent reinforce-ment and “bribery.”

2. Consider the Daily Routine. Selectreinforcers that fit into the naturalflow of the day. At school, for ex-ample, the reinforcer coincides withrecess, lunch, breaks between sub-jects, and the end of the day. At home,the reinforcer coincides with some ofthe natural transitions and events suchas TV in the morning before school, aprize when returning from school, playtime after school, dessert at dinner,evening television watching, bedtime,weekend events and privileges.

3. Consider the Financial Ability of theMediator. We have seen reinforce-ment programs fail because the par-ents could not afford what had beenrecommended. This is also a very realproblem in agencies that are strappedfor funds. It may be necessary to findevents naturally available in the envi-ronment, to shop at thrift shops forinexpensive/novel items, or to designlottery systems in which the personhas only one chance in 100 of gettingsomething expensive; the rest are con-ciliation prizes.

It is important to consider theperson’s chronological agewhen selecting reinforcers.


13

A number of years ago, we wereproviding training to teachers whoworked in a very poor inner city schoolserving students who were believedto be incorrigible. They expressedtheir frustration over the lack of avail-able funds to purchase potential rein-forcers and their reluctance to pay forsuch items out of their own pocket.We helped them organize a “BarriersResolution Meeting” in an effort toidentify “low cost” or “no cost” rein-forcers with the potential of being ofinterest to their students. The tworules of a barriers resolution meetingare that (1) anything goes, and (2) nocriticism is allowed. The reason forthese two rules is that somebody’simpractical, stupid, or even illegalidea, may prompt a brilliant idea fromsomebody else. If you don’t allowand encourage one set of ideas, youmay not get the second. Once all theideas are listed on the board, the groupchose by consensus the ideas it wantedto adopt. Without any prompting fromus, the teachers were in fact able toidentify three full pages of “low cost/no cost” reinforcers that they believedhad great potential for motivating theirstudents.

4. Consider Using Natural Reinforcers.These are events that are naturallyavailable in the setting. According toHall and Hall (1980): “They are to beused if we are clever enough to makethem contingent reinforcers for thebehaviors we wish to strengthen.” Ex-amples of natural reinforcers whichmay be appropriately used contin-gently for children include the fol-lowing:• free time in the class• homework free day• academic game• being monitor for the hour or day• tutor another student• special dessert• extended bedtime• bedtime story

Consider the Basic Rules ofReinforcement

Some of you may remember havingtaken a basic course in Behavior Modifi-cation (as it used to be termed) or Applied

Behavior Analysis. In those courses wewere taught the rules that determined theeffectiveness of reinforcement. Today,many people use reinforcement who havenot had the opportunity to take the basiccourses. Frequently, reinforcement doesnot work because one of these rules hasbeen violated. We would just like toreview some of these rules below. A fulldescription is beyond the scope of thisarticle.1. Meaningful. As mentioned above,

reinforcers need to be individualizedso that “meaningful” reinforcers canbe identified. A “meaningful” rein-forcer is one that a person is willing towork for or which influences behav-ior when it is available on either acontingent or noncontingent basis.

2. Contingent. For reinforcement tostrengthen a behavior, it must be con-tingent on that behavior. In otherwords, it must be delivered for a be-havior, and typically not otherwise beavailable. Another way of saying thisis that the person must know whythey have received the reinforcer.

3. Timing. Contingent reinforcement canbe delivered on a continuum fromimmediately to much later. It hasbeen established that “immediate re-inforcement is more effective thandelayed reinforcement.”This is especially impor-tant for people with severecognitive impairment,people who have a veryshort attention span, andpeople who have memoryproblems.

4. Amount. The amount ofreinforcement receivedalso has an impact on itseffectiveness. As we notedabove, it is unlikely thatyou would be willing towash my car for $1.00; butyou would rush to do it for$10,000. This is only common sense.Generally speaking, the amount ofreinforcement must be proportionalto the amount of work being required.

In contrast, providing too much ofa reinforcer can also render its useineffective. Part of a motivationalanalysis should be devoted to deter-

mining the level of reinforcement atwhich satiation effects may occur. Inthe contingent use of reinforcement,these levels should be avoided. In thenoncontingent use of reinforcementthese levels can be approached andeven exceeded. (See the discussion ofdeprivation, below.)

5. Quality. The quality of the reinforcercan have an impact on its effective-ness. While this is well supported inthe experimental literature, for us tounderstand this principle, it may bebest to put it in everyday terms. Allcoffee is not equal; a cup of 7-11coffee vs. a cup from Starbucks. Lis-tening to Les McCann (a jazz artist) isOK on a Walkman; but on a $5000Technics system it is very different.Traveling to London on “El Cheapo”air gets you there; but traveling on theConcord is great. Thus, you may beable to improve the effectiveness of areinforcer by improving its quality.

6. Amount of Work. Sometimes contin-gent reinforcers fail because we asktoo much for too little. The reinforcermay have been effective at the start,but we kept increasing the requiredeffort. As the effort increased, theremay be a point beyond which thereinforcer can no longer support per-

formance. Behaviorally, this pointhas been termed “schedule strain.” Inthe workaday world, we call it a“strike.” Doesn’t this sound familiar?Thus, if we notice this happening, wemay be able to reinstall the effective-ness of the reinforcer by reducing thework or by increasing the amount of

The introduction of a highdensity of noncontingent

reinforcement goes directlyto our prime objective, i.e.,

improving the quality life ofthe people we support.


14

reinforcement available.7. Novelty. The more varied and differ-

ent the contingent and noncontingentreinforcers used, the more likely theywill be effective. Even everyday,

mundane, reinforcers can be mademore effective through deliveringthem in novel ways. Hall and Hall(1980) have noted that persons whoare skilled at identifying and usingnovelty and novel reinforcers seem tobe more effective when it comes tochanging behavior.

8. Deprivation. For contingent reinforce-ment to be effective, there must besome level of deprivation for that re-inforcer. With the exception of money(and some others) there are few rein-forcers for which this is not true. Forexample, if a child had free access totelevision, why would he be willing towork for it. A person is less likely towork for a special meal just after he

has eaten a large meal. In other words,for reinforcement to be effective, thereinforcer cannot be freely availableoutside of the program or from un-planned sources.

In addition, a reinforcercan be made to be lesseffective by giving toomuch of it. By doing this,the person may becomesatiated for that rein-forcer. We talk about the“free access” rule. In thatrule we say that theamount of reinforcementgiven at any time shouldnot exceed 60 percent ofthat which the personwould use if they weregiven total and completefree access to the rein-forcer. This rule is de-signed to prevent “satia-tion” from occurring.

We have used a harshword like deprivation to

bring home an important technicalrequirement in using contingent rein-forcement effectively. This does notabsolve us from the important respon-sibility we have of designing our sup-port strategies in such a way as torespect the person’s rights, their needfor relatively free access to a highdensity of noncontingent reinforce-ment, and their need for autonomy.To use the principles of reinforce-ment in such a way as to satisfy thetechnical rules, without respecting theperson or obtaining their collabora-tion and consent, would be to use thistechnology in ways that conflict withour values rather than in a way thatsupports our values (LaVigna andWillis, 1996).

ConclusionIn conclusion, if we are going to use

contingent or noncontingent reinforce-ment as part of a support plan, then weneed to take the time to locate events thatare meaningful to the individual; in otherwords, we need to identify effective rein-forcers. In addition, once we have iden-tified these events, we need to providethem in ways that produce the effects weplan. This not only means improvementin the person’s challenging behavior butalso improvement in their overall qualityof life.

References

Ayllon, T., and Azrin, N. H. (1968). Reinforcer sampling:A technique for increasing the behavior of mentalpatients. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 13-20.

Barrett, B. H. (1962). Reduction of rate of multiple tics byfree operant conditioning methods. Journal of Nervousand Mental Disease, 135, 187-195.

Cautela, J. R., & Kastenbaum, R. (1967). A reinforcementsurvey schedule for use in therapy, training, andresearch. Psychological Reports, 20, 1115 - 1130.

Hall, V., & Hall, M. (1980). How to Select Reinforcers.Lawrence, KS: H & H Enterprises, Inc.

LaVigna, G. W., & Willis, T. J. (1996). Behavioraltechnology in support of values. Positive Practices,1(4), 1, 7-16.

Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A.,& Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preferenceand reinforcer value with profoundly retardedindividuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18,249 - 255.

Paclawskyj, T. R., & Vollmer, T. R., (1995). Reinforcerassessment for children with developmental disabilitiesand visual impairments. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 28, 219 - 224.

Premack, D. (1959). Toward empirical behavior laws: I.Positive reinforcement. Psychological Review, 66,219-233.

Quilitch, H. R., Christophersen, E. R., & Risley, T. R.(1977). The evaluation of children’s play materials.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 501 - 502.

Sulzer-Azaroff, B., and Mayer, R. G. (1991). BehaviorAnalysis for Lasting Change. New York: HardcourtBrace College Publishers.

Tharp, R. G., & Wetzel, R.J. (1969). Behavior modificationin the natural environment. New York: AcademicPress.

Willis, T. J., LaVigna, G. W., & Donnellan, A. M. (1993).Behavior assessment guide. Los Angeles: The Institutefor Applied Behavior Analysis.

This does not absolve us fromthe important responsibilitywe have of designing oursupport strategies in such away as to respect the person’srights, their need for relativelyfree access to a high density ofnoncontingent reinforcement,and their need for autonomy.

February 7 & 8, 1997 • LondonA Conference to Advance Positive Practices

in the Field of Challenging BehaviorEnrollment restricted to previous participants in IABA’s

Summer Institute or Longitudinal Training ProgramsFor more details contact: John Marshall

Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis • 6169 St. Andrews Road #123 • Columbia, SC 29212-3146 USATelephone: +1 (803) 731-8597 • Fax: +1 (803) 731-8598 • Toll Free (US & Canada): +1 (800) 457-5575


15

sion toward self/others/property hasceased and he is able to continue withscheduled task or he moves on to thenext task for one minute without ex-hibiting target behaviors.

C. Course. Once begun, the duration ofan anxiety outburst can be anywherefrom 30 seconds to 30 minutes. Edresponds positively to verbal inter-ventions which cue him to stop, torelax, and to take deep breaths (verbalinterrupters). Depending on howquickly staff are able to intervene andthe significance of or confusion asso-ciated with the upsetting event, Edwill calm immediately or the loudvocalizations, self injury and/or prop-erty destructive behaviors will reoccur.

Ed’s anxiety outbursts frequentlyinclude an intense level of eye contactfrom Ed. Further, most incidents in-volve Ed acknowledging, during thecalming process, that he is sorry orasking if he is in trouble. If the ante-cedent event involves the environ-ment not meeting Ed’s expectation(see Antecedent Analysis), the coursemay include precursor behaviors inwhich Ed demands that he receivewhat he expected or that the environ-ment be modified to his expectations.

After the discrete incident hasended, Ed may continue to verballyre-process the explanation over theremainder of the day and possibly intothe next day. This re-processing canfall into the definition of persevera-tive speech.

D. Strength.• Rate. Historical data and current

data do not provide accurate esti-mations of frequency. Referralinformation and staff interviewsconsistently report that outburstsoccur once or twice per month.Reports are consistent that fre-quency is directly proportional tothe amount of changes/flux in Ed’sdaily routines and environment.Other than this fact, there is noroutine cycle of increases or de-creases in the frequency of out-bursts. It is important here to notethat Ed’s Habilitation Aide andJob Coach each reported separateoutbursts on December 6, 1995

A. Topography. Ed’s anxiety outburstsinclude his loud vocalizations and/orhitting himself or damaging property.1. Loud vocalizations include vocal/

verbal behaviors at increased vol-ume such that they are above con-versational level at a distance often feet from Ed. These verbaliza-tions may include statements re-lated to the source of the anxiety(e.g., if the vacuum cleaner beltbreaks, Ed may be yelling “thevacuum” or “belt”) or a questionsuch as “what is going on?” Addi-tional loud vocal behaviors includeyells, groans, whining/cryingsounds and screams. If Ed is ask-ing a perseverative question or re-peating a comment (as describedin Perseverative Speech) and therepetition is at heightened volumewhich is not above conversationallevel at a distance of 10 feet, itshall not be considered part of ananxiety outburst.

2. Hitting himself includes slappingor punching his chest or leg. Atpresent, the behavior manifests it-self by Ed striking his upper chestwith a closed right handed fist.Historical data reflects self-injurywhich included slapping andpunching his thighs. This defini-tion is to include attempts to hit orslap. An attempt is defined as anevent which would have resultedin impact had there not been a

verbal distraction or physical in-terruption of the movement.

3. Damaging property includes Edhitting, throwing or otherwise de-facing inanimate objects (e.g., rip-ping, kicking, knocking over, etc.).There must be an intent to damageinvolved in order for it to meet thedefinition. Therefore, if during anoutburst Ed inadvertently bumpsinto a chair and it tips over, it doesnot meet the criteria and shouldnot be considered as a heighteningof severity of that incident.

B. Cycle. The onset of one of theseoutbursts is defined as the momentEd’s volume of vocalization is aboveconversational level at a distance often feet. Although this increase involume is generally coupled with self-hitting and/or aggression and prop-erty destruction, in the event that anyone of these behaviors occurred with-out a loud vocalization this too wouldindicate an onset of an outburst. Ingeneral, an event occurs which “setsEd off” (refer to the Antecedent Analy-sis section for more information) andhe immediately either yells (verbal-ization or vocalization) and hits him-self/damages property or, exhibits oneof the above behaviors singularly.

The discrete outburst can be con-sidered over (offset) when Ed hasaccepted and repeats back staff’s ex-planation of the event (at a conversa-tional level of volume) and aggres-

Definition of a Problem BehaviorPaula Miskuly, Developmental Disabilities Program, Montana Department ofPublic Health and Human Services, Billings, MT

Editors’ Note: The following definition of a problem behavior was submitted to usby Paula Miskuly. Paula participated in the two-week training institute that weprovided in and for the State of Montana. She was one of 30 state consultants wetrained through that process. Paula did an excellent, detailed job in defining thereferral problem. She also did an excellent job in reviewing the history of thisproblem, which we have also included below. We look forward to newslettercontributions from many of you in the months to come.

Description of Behavior and Operational Definition ofAnxiety Outbursts


16

and that I observed an outburstmyself on the afternoon of De-cember 7, 1995, suggesting a cur-rent rate of five to ten per week.

• Severity. At this time, Ed’s out-bursts are of short duration (rang-ing from two minutes to ten min-utes). They do not include aggres-sion against people or propertydestruction. As noted, in the past,Ed had engaged in frequent ag-gression and occasional propertydestruction. However, due to hiseviction from an apartment, theseverity of the behavior is bettermeasured by it’s potential to jeop-ardize independent living or sup-ported employment options for Ed.For example, the McDonald’smanager has recently requestedthat his Job Coach remain on site.

History of the ProblemThe history of this behavior is so long-

standing that it is impossible to ascertainthe onset. Historical data reflects that Edhas “always” had issues with environ-mental and schedule change as well aswith not having his expectations being

met. As discussed, the manifestations ofhis outbursts have at times included moresevere, intense, and dangerous acting outbehaviors. During previous attempts tosolve these problems, Ed may havelearned to avoid more intense punitivemeasures by tailoring his outbursts tooccur without posing risk of harm topeople or property. However, he has notlearned the necessary responses to re-place the function(s) served by these out-bursts. No cyclical pattern has been iden-tified through this analysis. However,actual frequency data over time was notavailable. Nor was correlation informa-tion available, in terms of environmentaland programmatic changes associatedwith changes in Ed’s behavior. As men-tioned earlier in this report, there mayhave been a decrease noted when Edbegan receiving medical treatment forallergies. There is no suggestion thatillness or malaise effects Ed’s ability tocope with his environment. Staff havediscussed the possibility that when issuesinvolving major environmental or lifechanges are occurring, Ed’s independentproblem solving skills and processingabilities may decrease in their effective-ness. This situation can be noticed too if

the target of Ed’s perseveration cannotcome to closure. For example, if heperseverates on when to buy his bus ticket,you can set a designated time to purchasethe ticket and this can resolve the prob-lem. Alternatively, if he perseverates onbuying a bus ticket and you cannot set atime with him until you check with Peg,Karen, etc., such vague cues to wait cancause a period of chaos for Ed. In suchcases it is common to see decreased abil-ity to problem solve or process informa-tion. In the past, such situations appearedto be related to Anxiety Outbursts. Thisis discussed further in the antecedentanalysis section of this report.

Staff acknowledge a recent increasein outbursts but are unsure as to the rea-sons. Some state it may be a delayedreaction to his recent move to indepen-dent living. Others hypothesize that Edmay be aware that a change in his em-ployment status is forthcoming. Whileno one has addressed the issue with him,he is aware that his co-worker at themaintenance job has been fired. Alterna-tively, his co-worker’s removal may initself be related to the increased out-bursts.

29 W. Susquehanna Avenue, Suite 210, Baltimore, MD 21204

Make your plans now!The 22nd Annual TASH Conference"Renewing the Promise"

will be held at the New Orleans Hilton Riverside,

November 21-23, 1996.

TASH is known for its advocacy for the full inclusion of people

with disabilities in community life. The annual conference

draws over 2,300 advocates from around the world who are

shaping the promise for continued equity, social justice, and

inclusion for all.

The unbeatable enthusiasm and combination of personal

experience and professional knowledge make this a conference you

can’t afford to miss. Over 450 total sessions and special events

will be presented. For more information, contact Rose Holsey at TASH (410) 828-8274 x100.


17

Procedural Protocols

Editors’ Note: This issue’s protocols come from a support plan developed onbehalf of a 15-year-old boy challenged with the problems associated with autism.He was referred because his extreme physical aggression toward others hadresulted in his placement in an out-of-state, 24-hour residential school. Among theinteresting things we discovered in carrying out our assessment was that his 101 IQobscured the fact that he had some major cognitive difficulties. On some of hispsychological sub-tests he had scores as high as “16,” while on others he scored aslow as “2” and “3.” These latter scores were in the areas of comprehension andunderstanding. The implications of this scatter were important in understandingthe meaning of his behavior, especially since his parents and teachers had theimpression that he had a very good understanding of the things that were said tohim and the things he was being asked to do.

A major component of his support plan included his moving back home andenrolling in his neighborhood school. Table 1 shows an outline of his entiresupport plan. We include here the detailed protocols of two of these strategies.Specifically, these are the protocols we developed to teach him how to cope withand tolerate denial and to guide staff on how to use active listening when workingwith him.

Protocol #1Name: Paul RedlandsDate Protocol Developed: June 25, 1995Protocol Name: Learning How to Tolerate and Cope With Denial

MaterialsThis instructional program requires a series of photographs portraying the following

scenes, each with an attached word caption:

Scene #1:Photo: Paul is in close proximity to his father and appears to be saying or asking for

something.Caption: Paul is telling his father that he wants something. e.g., to go swimming

with his brother, money, watching TV, renting a video, etc.Variations:a. Each time the scene is reviewed, the desired item should be changed, e.g., Paul

might be asking for money, asking to watch TV, asking to rent a movie, askingto go into the swimming pool with his brother, etc.

b. Alternatively, this scene should be described as Paul asking for something, e.g.,“Paul asks his father for money” and as Paul telling his father what he wants, e.g.,“Paul tells his father to give him money”.

c. There should be six different photos of this first scene, with variations in settings(e.g., different rooms in the house, at the store, etc.) and a limited number of otheradults, for example, his mother, Frank, etc., although the majority of the picturesshould be of him and his father.

Scene #2:Photo: This should be similar to photo # 1, but with minor variations in pose.Caption: Paul’s father or other adult portrayed says no, with some surface

explanation.Variations: The variations of this photo and corresponding caption should corre-

spond to those described for photo # 1.

A. Transitional Protocols1. Paul’s

a. Redlands Rulesb. Brotherly Phrasesc. Cognitive Restructuringd. Gift

2. Stephen’sa. Cognitive Restructuringb. Brotherly Phrasesc. Gift

B. Ecological Strategies1. Placement in Home School2. Move Home3. Interpersonal Style

C. Positive Programming1. General Skills

a. Domestic Skills - DinnerPreparation

b. Community Skills - Shoppingfor Dinner

c. Recreational Skills1) With Brother2) With Peers

d. Vocational Skills1) Small Motor Repair2) Oil Change

e. Academic Skills - High SchoolDiploma Curriculum UsingIndividualized Methods

2. Functionally Equivalent Skillsa. Expressing Negative Feelingsb. Communicating Confusion

3. Functionally Related Skillsa. Understanding and

Empathizing with Othersb. Discrete Trial Compliance

Training4. Coping and Tolerance Skills

a. Tolerating Criticismb. Tolerating Delayc. Tolerating Deniald. Tolerating Interruptione. Tolerating Pressure to Perform

a Nonpreferred Activityf. Tolerating Frustrationg. Dealing with Jealousy

E. Focused Support Strategies1. Antecedent Control

a. Scripts1) Making requests to

perform nonpreferred activities

2) Denial and saying no3) Delay of Gratification4) Interrupting a reinforcing

activity5) Confrontation about

misbehaviorb. Avoiding Aversive Stimuli

2. DROPE. Reactive Strategies

1. Active Listening2. Stimulus Change3. Geographic Containment4. Physical Management

Table 1 - Outline of Paul Redlands’Support Plan and Protocols


18

2. An indication of what instructionalStep was worked on.

3. A general indication of Paul’s level ofparticipation and cooperation.

4. An pass/fail indication for the ses-sion.a. Pass: Paul seems to have mastered

the scenario and is ready to moveahead to the next Step.

b. Fail: Paul still seems hesitant anduncertain in working through thescenario and is not ready to moveahead to the next Step.

5. General comment by staff (optional).6. A summary chart should be kept up to

date, showing which scenarios havebeen introduced, the date introduced,and the date each Step was mastered.

Pass CriterionAfter a session has been passed, Paul

can move to the next step for that particu-lar scenario. However, each scenario thatis used for training purposes should movethrough each of the Steps in turn.

Fail CriterionIf one week goes by without Paul

moving ahead to the next Step on at leastone scenario, this protocol should be re-viewed and revised accordingly.

Protocol #2Name: Paul RedlandsDate Protocol Developed: June 21, 1995Protocol Name: Active Listening

Materials:None

Schedule:Active listening should be used as a

standard interactional style and, in addi-tion, specifically, whenever Paul is upsetand agitated about something and there isa risk that trying to move on with thescheduled activities will result in an esca-lation of behavior. (i.e. escalation of a“tantrum”)

Responsible Person:Primary support staff.

General Statement:Actively listening should be incorpo-

Scene #3:Photo: This should be similar to pho-

tos # 1 and #2, but with minor variationsin pose.

Caption: Paul says O.K., I can livewith that.

Variations: The variations of thisphoto and corresponding caption shouldcorrespond to those described for photo # 1.

Scene #4:Photo: This should be similar to photo

#3, but with minor variations in pose.Caption: Parent/other adult says

“Thank you for being so understanding,you are really learning to be quite a niceyoung man.”

Variations: Same as above.

ScheduleAt least once a day, as scheduled.

Responsible PersonAssigned specialist.

General StatementThere are a number of antecedent con-

trol and reinforcement strategies in placeto minimize the number of times that Paulgets so upset that he escalates to a Tan-trum with its associated behaviors. How-ever, the ultimate solution to these prob-lems will be when he learns to tolerateand cope with the fact that he cannotalways have everything he wants upondemand. This instructional program isdesigned as one of many to teach him tocope with and tolerate the fact that hecan’t always get his way, and to deal withhis frustration in socially acceptable ways.

Steps1. Verbal Competence. Review scenario

with Paul until he is familiar with itand he can tell the story.

2. Prompted Role Play. Once Paul be-comes familiar with the “scenario,”staff and he should play their respec-tive roles, with staff providing thenecessary prompts to Paul for him toplay his part.

3. Unprompted Role Play. Reliance onthe prompts should be gradually fadeduntil staff and Paul can role play thesituation without them.

4. Prompted Generalization Trials.

Generalization trials should be sched-uled throughout the day in which the“scenario” is reenacted by staff andPaul. Initially, this may require theuse of prompts for Paul to do his role.

5. Unprompted Generalization Trials.Prompting should be gradually fadeduntil staff can initiate the “scenario”any time during the day and Paul willrespond appropriately.

6. Use of Sufficient Exemplars. A suffi-cient number of “scenarios” shouldbe developed to allow variations inthe person interacting with Paul andwhat Paul is asking for, so as to assuregeneralization.

Suggestions1. This process and, in fact, each session

needs to be primed with Paul. Forexample, he could be engaged bypointing out to him how all adults,including his father and mother, needto learn how to tolerate frustration andnot always getting everything theywant and being asked if he is ready tolearn and practice such grown-up be-havior and make his father proud.

2. While Paul’s father needs to be a partof this training, especially later on, hemay need to be recruited to engagePaul in the process to begin with.

3. The reactive strategy for dealing withPaul’s request for something, such asmoney, a video, or anything else, couldbe resolved by redirection to the alter-nate solution described above, oncethe situation is brought under controlby active listening, problem solving,stimulus change, etc.

4. The guidelines listed in Appendix Gof the Periodic Service Review: ATotal Quality Assurance System forHuman Services and Education(LaVigna, Willis, Shaull, Abedi, &Sweitzer, 1994) should be followed,as applicable, in implementing eachinstructional session.

DataThe results of each session, at least

one each day, should be recorded in an“instructional log” created for this pur-pose. The entry should include:1. A description of which scenario was

employed.


19

rated into the basic style of interactionthat staff use with Paul. In addition,reflecting his feelings to him so that heknows he is being heard, should be usedas a strategy for when he exhibits precur-sor behavior. This should be effective inpreventing escalation to a full blown epi-sode of aggression. In preventing escala-tion to aggression, active listening cantherefore be viewed as an additional ante-cedent control strategy. Active listeningis also to be used as a reactive strategy,and as a way of de-escalating an actualepisode of either minor or major aggres-sion. When using active listening as areactive strategy, having reached a pointin the interaction where transition canoccur, Paul should be encouraged to moveon to the regularly scheduled activities.

Method

General1. Obtain Paul’s attention before begin-

ning to talk to him. (This is particu-larly important when he is being dis-tracted by surrounding stimuli.)

2. Assure that his body is oriented to-ward you and you are facing him, butthat you are no further than six feetaway and no closer than three feetaway.

3. Speak slowly.4. Use clear, concise and simple lan-

guage.5. Use a friendly, warm, engaging tone

of voice.6. Convey openness non-verbally, using

body language and gestures.7. Use non-authoritarian interactional

style.8. Convey respect for Paul as an active

teenager.9. Avoid using a bossy, confrontational,

demanding manner.

Specific1. When:

a. Style: Active Listening is not justa strategy but a non-judgmentalstyle to be used in all your interac-tions with Paul.• When something good happens• When you are providing infor-

mation• When you are trying to prob-

lem solve or make a decisionb. Reactive Strategy: Active listen-

ing is also a strategy to be usedreactively when Paul is visiblyupset, engaging in any precursorbehavior, and/or in any minor ormajor aggression.

2. Listening:a. General Guidelines:

• Before verbally interactingwith him, you should try tounderstand what Paul is feel-ing or what his message means.(e.g. “I don’t want to take ashower,” or “I am upset be-cause I could not pick the videoI wanted.”)

• You should then put what youunderstand Paul to be sayinginto your own words in order toverify your understanding ofwhat he is feeling (i.e., reflectback what he is saying in yourown words).

• DO NOT evaluate, give an opin-ion, advise, analyze, or ques-tion (see roadblock section formore details).

• You should feed back only whatyou feel Paul’s message meant,nothing more, nothing less.

b. Examples:• Paul says, “I hate this, I want to

stop!”Staff says, “It sounds like youare unhappy with this activityand you don’t want to do itanymore.”

• Paul says, “I’ve had it withSusan, she’s such a slob!”Staff says, “It seems like youare fed up with Susan and thatyou think she is very messy!”

* Staff should, in general, matchthe emotional level of Paul usesin expressing his feelings. Forexample, if Paul has an excitedtone of voice you should alsohave an excited tone of voice.However, use your best judg-ment as you get to know him.In some circumstances, hemight escalate if you match hisemotional level, in which caseyou should maintain a calmdemeanor while continuing to

reflect his feelings.3. Staging:

a. General: When using active lis-tening as a reactive strategy, tryyour best to get to an area which isfree from distractions.

b. Home: Rather than trying to ac-tively listen to Paul when he isupset in front of his parents, or inthe living room or other area of thehouse where the issue may havedeveloped, try to get him to a quietroom, specifically, his bedroom.

c. Community. When using activelistening as a reactive strategy inthe community, again, try to go toan area that is both uncrowded anduncluttered. For example, if youare in the grocery store, try to walkout to the parking lot or at least goto an uncrowded part of the store.

4. Avoiding Roadblocks:a. General: Remember, active lis-

tening is only feeding back to Paulwhat you think he is saying, noth-ing more, nothing less. Try toavoid the following responses orroadblocks to active listening (Gor-don, 1970):1) ordering, directing, command-

ing2) warning, admonishing, threat-

ening3) exhorting, moralizing, preach-

ing4) advising, giving solutions or

suggestions5) lecturing, teaching, giving logi-

cal arguments6) judging, criticizing, disagree-

ing, blaming7) praising, agreeing8) name calling, ridiculing, sham-

ing9) interpreting, analyzing, diag-

nosing10) reassuring, sympathizing, con-

soling, supporting11) probing, questioning, interro-

gating12) withdrawing, distracting, hu-

moring, diverting5. Monitoring: During the active listen-

ing process, try your best to track theprogress you are making e.g., is Paulbeginning to calm down or continu-


20

ing to escalate. The indicators thatPaul is escalating is that his face willstay flushed and begin to darken andhe will begin to gestulate with hisarms. There are also reliable signsthat Paul is beginning to calm down:a. Verbal Indicators: Voice tone

should start becoming closer to anormal volume and the speed withwhich Paul is speaking should be-come closer to a normal pace.

b. Nonverbal Indicators: Paul be-gins to seem calmer (less freneticbody movements) and begins tolook physically more relaxed andless tense (body not as stiff andrigid).

6. Transition Appropriately:a. Timing: The timing as to when to

switch from active listening toanother mode, such as using one ofthe prepared scripts developed fora specific problem situation orgeneral problem solving, is vital to

the success of the reactive strat-egy. There are some specific signsto look for which indicate Paulmay be ready to move on:• Paul’s affect comes down; his

voice has a normal tone and heis talking at a normally pacedspeed.

• There are physical signs of re-laxation; Paul is not movingabout restlessly, his shouldersare relaxed, etc.

• Staff has made sure that all thenuances of the message Paul istrying to communicate havebeen reflected. It is importantto not stop at generic reflectionsuch as, “You sure are angry.”

• Staff should review with Paulthe issues that were brought upduring the active listening pro-cess. This could be done in alist fashion such as, “Let memake sure I understand all we

talked about; you said you wereupset because your brothercame in your room withoutpermission and because you donot want to cook dinner to-night. Is there anything Imissed?” Paul should then in-dicate if he feels he has beenheard and is ready to move on.

b. Next Strategy: Once you havebeen through the above processmove on to another strategy listedon Paul’s plan, such as using oneof the prepared scripts.

7. Reinstate Active Listening: If youmove on to a new strategy and Paulbegins to escalate, return to activelistening. Remember it can take along time for a Paul to feel that all hisconcerns have been listened to, sotake your time and be patient. Youmay need to listen to the same con-cerns over and over.

1996 Summer Institute Participants

Editors’ Note: We would like to introduce to you the participants of the 1996Summer Institute held in Los Angeles between July 28 through August 10. Listedalphabetically by surname:

Jessica Beasley, LRE for LIFE Project, TN; Tim Bordsen, Integrity, Inc., AR;Melissa Brown, LRE for LIFE Project, TN; Andrew Burton, Central InteriorFamily Foundation, BC, Canada; Andy Carden, Glenwood Mental Health Services,AL; Gregory Chesnutt, LRE for LIFE Project, TN; Mark Chumbler, The

Rehabilitation Center, IN; Darcy Day,LRE for LIFE Project, TN; RobinDraves, Hiawatha Valley EducationDistrict, MN; Mary Ann Garfold,Berkeley County Public Schools, WV;Sally Harte, Belford College, England;Sue Hines, Allied Health, NewZealand; Ayndrea LaVigna, Institutefor Applied Behavior Analysis, CA;Carole Morritt, Allied Health, NewZealand; Bruce New, River Crest, PA;Elizabeth Pardo, North PalosElementary Schools Dist. 117, IL;Wynelle Roberson, University ofFlorida, FL; Neil Rothwell, RobertFergusson Unit, Scotland; KennethRutten, Central Interior FamilyFoundation, BC, Canada; JayneStooksbury, LRE for LIFE Project, TN;Duren Thompson, LRE for LIFEProject, TN; Marina Valerio, OPARC,CA; Jill Vaughan, Southwest CookCounty Cooperative for SpecialEducation, IL; Peter Waddington,Central Interior Family Foundation,BC, Canada; Brigid Walker, DundeeHealthcare NHS Trust, Scotland;Kelley Woodside, LRE for LIFEProject, TN; and IABA Staff:GaryLaVigna, Tom Willis, BrendaLaVigna and John Marshall.

Continued on page 22


21

Profiles in Courage: An Introduction toThree People Who Inspire us to Reachfor Our Inner Most Potential

Stacy L. Daniels and Gary W. LaVigna, Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, LosAngeles, CA

Editors’ Note: In 1985 we established and now sponsor Community ServicesInstitute (CSI) to carry out our not for profit activities. Recently, IABA was thesole sponsor of a fund raising event in support of CSI. The proceeds of this eventwent to two purposes: one was to establish an endowment fund, the income fromwhich would be made available directly to our clients to help them with some of thefinancial challenges they face in living and working in the community, and in tryingto provide for themselves and their families The second was to provide them withassistance in making a down payment on, or with the closing costs they would incurin purchasing, their own home.

At the dinner dance which provided the focal point of our fund raising efforts, wepresented the inspiring story of three of the people we help support, one of whomreceived our “Life Achievement Award.” In our field of challenging behavior, wesometimes can lose sight of the person. We wanted to take this opportunity tointroduce you to three people who can inspire all of us by printing below an editedversion of our presentation that night.

If any of you would like to make a contribution to CSI for the purposes describedabove, we have enclosed envelopes for your convenience.

IntroductionWhen the Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis was estab-

lished 15 years ago, we dedicated ourselves to a vision: that peoplewho are challenged with a developmental disability would have the

opportunity to live regular lives, with the dignity that comes from areal job for a real paycheck, and the self esteem and independencethat comes from living in their own homes. Since then we have been

able to help hundreds of people to work at jobs in the community: Todate the folks we serve have earned more than three million dollars.

Additionally, we support almost 100 people to live in their ownhomes.

people put a down payment on a house orcondominium so they can own a place oftheir own.

The philosophy of services for peoplewith developmental disabilities has gonethrough a virtual revolution over the lasttwo decades. Just over twenty years ago,adults who faced life with the challengeof a developmental disability mostlyfound themselves living in state-run orprivate institutions, with nothing con-structive to do during most of the day. Adecade ago, while many remained in in-stitutions, licensed group homes werebeing established, which provided thepossibility of some degree of communitypresence and participation. However,the day to day existence of even thepeople who lived in group homes wasregimented and often devoid of produc-tive and dignified activity. We wouldnow like to tell you the story of threepeople who met these challenges. Everyday is still a struggle for them and yet theyhave gone on to build exciting, produc-tive lives for themselves. Booker T.Washington said “I have learned thatsuccess is to be measured not so much bythe position that one has reached in life asby the obstacles which he has overcomewhile trying to succeed.” These indi-viduals not only have overcome largeobstacles in their lives but on a daily basisinspire all who come in contact withthem.

Zeke’s StoryThe first person we would like to

introduce you to is Zeke Fernandez. Whenwe first met Zeke four years ago he saidto us “I’m a man and I want to work.”This is especially exciting consideringthat Zeke, who is now a senior citizen,spent the first 30 years of his life lockedup in a state hospital. Zeke is a goodexample of what happened to people inthe earlier part of the century when peoplewith disabilities were isolated from soci-ety because of fear and ignorance, andhad few opportunities to be productive.Since we have been serving Zeke, he hashad many opportunities to work and forthe past year has been working diligentlyat Burger King. Zeke’s job includeskeeping the dining room clean during the

here tonight and helping us with the fullrealization of our vision. Half of theproceeds from tonight’s event will be putinto an endowment fund, the interest fromwhich will be used to help people moveinto and keep up with their own apart-ments. The other half will be used to help

We still have two remaining needsthat must be met. It is always a struggleto help our folks move into a new place,with all the expenses involved. Addition-ally, many people need the stability intheir living situation that is only possibleas a home owner. Thank you for being


22

lunch rush and keeping the condimentcanisters full. Zeke is very social andsees friends everyday at work.

In addition to work, Zeke enjoys avery active community life. Being in-volved in his local church is very impor-tant to him. He has made many friendsand although he can walk to church now,if he needs a ride to special activities hehas friends who are happy to give him alift. One of Zeke’s Saturday morninghang outs is a local donut shop. He issuch a regular there that everyone knowshim by name.

Zeke lives in an apartment in Venturawith one roommate. He is no ordinaryhousekeeper, but has been known to spendhours cleaning and doing laundry. Zekeenjoys cooking too, and is always excitedwhen he learns a new meal.

Natalie’s StoryWhen we met 27 year old Natalie

Cole in the state hospital, where she grewup and continued to reside, the “experts”predicted that she could never success-fully live in the community. With theproper kinds of support and activities,Natalie has now been living in her ownhome for the past four years. She lives ina duplex in Culver City with two housemates. One of the most exciting experi-ences for Natalie was having a key to herown front door. She takes pride in keep-ing a neat apartment. She even enjoysgardening.

Natalie enjoys her community sur-roundings and especially likes to walk to

the park to keep in shape. She loveshaving friends over for meals and parties.Natalie has had several job opportunitiesand experiences. Her strong preferenceis to work in the food service industry.

Leonardo’s StoryLeonardo Castillo is a portrait in cour-

age. Challenged since birth with cerebralpalsy, a life long developmental disabil-ity which affects his speech, muscle con-trol, and coordination, Leo’s hopes forsuccessful opportunities seemed slim. Wefirst met Leo in 1987 when he was gradu-ating from high school. We assisted himin obtaining his first job bussing tables ina restaurant in Malibu. For nine monthshe took two busses daily to get to work,while waiting for an opportunity in SantaMonica, where he lived. Leo’s patienceand perseverance paid off when he got afull-time position close to home at anarchitectural firm doing administrativeand clerical functions.

Over the next two years, Leo provedto be a conscientious and productive em-ployee who received numerous outstand-ing evaluations and pay raises. His workwas so consistent that he soon graduatedfrom support services funded by the De-partment of Developmental Disabilitiesto those funded by the Department ofRehabilitation, which are geared towardmore independent workers. Leo alsosoon received an even better job opportu-nity initiated by a boss who had changedcompanies. He now works for KPFF, anengineering consulting firm. His job

description includes copying, mailing,running errands, stocking and lots andlots of filing. He takes advantage of abenefits package which includes fullhealth benefits. He is valued by his co-workers and supervisor. (In fact his su-pervisor was in the audience during thispresentation.)

In addition to successful employment,the most important part of life for Leo isrelationships and his family. He wasable, with the help from his support staff,to fulfill his biggest dream: he became aUS citizen. He was then able to sponsorhis childhood sweetheart to come andlive in America. They later married andhave two young daughters. As you cansee, Leo lives a full and productive life.

Finally, we would like to end with aquote from Muriel James and DorothyJongeward, “Born to Win.” “It takescourage to be a real winner-not a winnerin the sense of beating out the other guyby always insisting on winning over him-but a winner at responding to life. It takescourage to experience the freedom thatcomes with autonomy, courage to acceptintimacy and directly encounter otherpersons, courage to take a stand in anunpopular cause, courage to choose au-thenticity over approval and to choose itagain and again, courage to accept theresponsibility for your own choices, andindeed, courage to be the very uniqueperson you really are.”

The Life Achievement Award wasbestowed upon a man with a lot of cour-age… Leonardo Castillo.

8. Fail Criteria: If you have been ac-tively listening using this protocol forat least 15 minutes and there are abso-lutely no physical or verbal indicatorsthat Paul is calming down and he isbecoming more and more upset, youmay need to stop active listening andmove on to an alternative reactivestrategy (see below).

9. Fail Strategy: If active listening hasfailed in this instance (see above defi-nition) move to an alternative reactivestrategy listed in Paul’s protocol, e.g.,

stimulus change or, possibly geo-graphic containment.

CommentsIt is important to remember the judg-

ment involved with active listening, par-ticularly with regard to the timing and inmoving from stage to stage. One couldmove too early or too late. In general, aslong as the situation is not getting worse,you should take as much time as neces-sary to resolve the process without feel-ing the need to get on with the schedule.This may mean staying on the topic for

longer than indicated in the fail criterionabove. On the other hand, if the situationis dangerous because of attempted oractual property destruction or aggression,you may appropriately decide to move onto the next strategy before the 15-minutecriterion, and come back to active listen-ing later.

References

Gordon, T. (1970). Parent effectiveness training.New York: P. H. Wyden.

LaVigna, G. W., Willis, T. J., Shaull, J. F., Abedi,M., & Sweitzer, M. (1994). The periodic servicereview: A total quality assurance system forhuman services and education. Baltimore: PaulBrookes Publishing Co.

Continued from page 20


23

Make your plans nowto attend the

Ninth AnnualTwo Week Summer

Institute on

Assessment &Analysis of Severe &Challenging Behavior

July 20 - August 2, 1997Los Angeles, California

For a complete description of the course,registration procedure and fees, contact:

John Q. Marshall, Jr.Director of Professional Training ServicesInstitute for Applied Behavior Analysis

6169 St. Andrews Road #123Columbia, SC 29212-3146 USATelephone: +1 (803) 731-8597

Fax: +1 (803) 731-8598Toll Free (US & Canada): (800) 457-5575

Internet: [email protected]

Alphabetical Index of Articles in Volume I(October 1995 through July 1996)

Back Issues Are Available for $10 per Issue

A Person Centered Approachto Supporting People withSevere Reputations ..... Vol I Num 1 ..... Oct 95 ..... p 16

Behavioral Assessment:An Overview Part 1 ...... Vol I Num 2 ..... Jan 96 ........p 1

Behavioral Assessment:An Overview Part 2 ...... Vol I Num 3 ..... Apr 96 ........p 1

Behavioral Technology inSupport of Values ........ Vol I Num 4 ..... Jul 96 .........p 1

Challenging Behavior: A Model for Breakingthe Barriers to Social and CommunityIntegration .................... Vol I Num 1 ..... Oct 95 ........p 1

Definition of a Problem Behavior(Aggression) ................. Vol I Num 1 ..... Oct 95 ..... p 18

Definition of a Problem Behavior(Defiance) ..................... Vol I Num 4 ..... Jul 96 ...... p 17

Definition of a Problem Behavior(InappropriateInteractions) ................. Vol I Num 3 ..... Apr 96 ..... p 20

Definition of a Problem Behavior(UnexplainedPossession) .................. Vol I Num 2 ..... Jan 96 ..... p 16

Positive Programming: AnOrganizational Response toChallenging Behavior ... Vol I Num 1 ..... Oct 95 ........p 3

Procedural Protocols - BehavioralEscalation ..................... Vol I Num 4 ..... Jul 96 ...... p 18

Procedural Protocols -Interactional Style ........ Vol I Num 2 ..... Jan 96 ..... p 17

Procedural Protocols -Interpersonal Style ....... Vol I Num 1 ..... Oct 95 ..... p 21

Procedural Protocols -Transition ..................... Vol I Num 3 ..... Apr 96 ..... p 21

Quality Monitoring atChurch Parade ............. Vol I Num 4 ..... Jul 96 .........p 3

Resource Focus: CompetencyBased Training ............. Vol I Num 4 ..... Jul 96 ...... p 22

The Behavior Intervention SupportTeam Program: AddressingChallenging Behavior of Peoplewith and Intellectual Disability inVictoria, Australia ......... Vol I Num 2 ..... Jan 96 ........p 3

The Development of a StatewideBehavior Resource in theState of Montana .......... Vol I Num 3 ..... Apr 96 ........p 3


24

ResourcesTraining Calendar

Alternatives to Punishment: Solving BehaviorProblems with Nonaversive StrategiesG.W. LaVigna and A.M. Donnellan

“(This book) provides a comprehensive treatmentof alternatives to punishment in dealing with behaviorproblems evidenced by human beings at various levelsof development and in various circumstances. Basedupon their own extensive observations and athoroughgoing analysis of relevant experimental studies,(the authors) have put together a document that is atonce a teaching instrument, a summary of research, andan argument for the use of positive reinforcement in thetreatment of inadequate or undesired behavior… alandmark volume which should forever lay the ghost thataversive methods (even the ubiquitous ‘time out’) needto be applied to the delinquent, the retarded, or thenormal ‘learner,’ whether in the home, the school, theclinic, or other situations.” — Fred S. Keller (From thePreface to Alternatives to Punishment) - paper, $19.50/ISBN 0-8290-1245-1

The Behavior Assessment GuideT.J. Willis, G.W. LaVigna and A.M. Donnellan

The Behavior Assessment Guide provides theuser with a comprehensive set of data gathering andrecords abstraction forms to facilitate the assessmentand functional analysis of a person’s challenging behaviorand the generation of nonaversive behavioral supportplans. Permission has been granted by the authors toreproduce the forms for professional use. -spiral, $21.00

Progress Without Punishment: EffectiveApproaches for Learners with Behavior ProblemsA.M. Donnellan, G.W. LaVigna, N. Negri-Schoultz,L. Fassbender

As individuals with special educational anddevelopmental needs are increasingly being integratedinto the community, responding to their challengingbehavior in a dignified and appropriate manner becomes

essential. In this volume, the authors argue against theuse of punishment, and instead advocate the use ofalternative strategies. The positive programming modeldescribed in this volume is a gradual educational processfor behavior change, based on a functional analysis ofproblems, that involves systematic instruction in moreeffective ways of behaving. The work provides anoverview of nonaversive behavioral technology anddemonstrates how specific techniques change behaviorthrough positive means. The extensive examples andillustrative material make the book a particularly usefulresource for the field.-paper, $17.95/ISBN 8077-2911-6.

Social Skills Training for Psychiatric PatientsR.P. Liberman, W.J. DeRisi, K.T. Mueser

This guide to the application of social skills trainingwith psychiatric patients systematically provides clinicianswith the ingredients necessary to start and run their ownsocial skills groups. Case examples, transcripts of socialskills training sessions and exercises aid the reader inapplying the training methods.-paper, $28.95/ISBN 0-08-034694-4

The Role of Positive Programming InBehavioral TreatmentG.W. LaVigna, T.J. Willis, A.M. Donnellan

This chapter describes the role of positiveprogramming in supporting people with severe andchallenging behavior. After discussing the need forpositive programming within a framework based onoutcome needs, variations of this strategy are delineated.Then, assessment and analysis are described as criticalfor comprehensive, positive, and effective support. Acase study of severe aggression is presented to illustratethe process of assessment and analysis, the supportsthat follow from this process, and the long term results ofthis approach. - spiral, $5.00

The Periodic Service Review: A Total QualityAssurance System for Human Services &EducationG.W. LaVigna, T.J. Willis, J.F. Shaull, M. Abedi,M. Sweitzer

Evolving from more than a decade of work at IABA,this book provides the tools needed to enhance andmaintain high quality service delivery. Translating theprinciples of organizational behavior management andtotal quality management into concrete policies andprocedures, the Periodic Service Review (PSR) acts asboth an instrument and a system. As an instrument, thePSR provides easy to follow score sheets to assess staffperformance and the quality of services provided. As asystem, it guides managers step-by-step through 4interrelated elements — performance standards,performance monitoring, performance feedback, andsystematic training — to offer an ongoing process forensuring staff consistency and a high level of quality forservices and programs. Practical examples show howthe PSR is applied to group home, supported living,classroom, and supported employment settings, and thehelpful appendices provide numerous tables and chartsthat can easily be tailored to a variety of programs. -$37.95/ISBN 1-55766-142-1

Add for Shipping to US Addresses:1st book (min.) $4.00 Each add’l book $0.75

Add for Shipping to International Addresses:1st book (min.) $6.00 Each add’l book $1.00

Mail check or company purchase order to:Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis

6169 St. Andrews Road #123Columbia, SC 29212-3146 USA

Telephone: (803) 731-8597 • Fax: (803) 731-8598

Foreign orders must be made in U.S. currency bybank draft or international money order.

(Prices are subject to change without notice.)

Multimedia Training Programs

Competency Based Training ProgramThis is a systematic, criterion-referenced, self-

instructional multimedia course for staff developmentthat is customized to your agency. It is being used byadult service agencies and schools in Australia, GreatBritain, Spain and the US. $1,500.00

For more information on the CBT, contact:Diane Sabiston

Institute for Applied Behavior AnalysisPO Box 30726

Savannah, GA 31410-0726 USATelephone: (912) 898-0390 • Fax: (912) 898-8077

Positive Approaches to Solving BehaviorChallenges

This is a 6 module video training program thatteaches viewers IABA’s person centered multielementmodel for developing nonaversive support plans forpeople with challenging behavior. Two text books,lecture notes and pre/post tests are included. $1,250.00

Staff Supervision and Management Strategies forQuality Assurance

This is a 4 module video training program basedon The Periodic Service Review: A Total QualityAssurance System for Human Services and Education.Viewers will learn concrete strategies to ensure that thehighest quality services are being provided by theiragency/school. Text book, lecture notes and participantexercises are included. $750.00

For more information, contact:



Telephone: (803) 731-8597 • Fax: (803) 731-8598

Staff Consistency Through the PeriodicService Review: A Quality Managementand Outcome Evaluation System is a 1 dayseminar that teaches participants a staffmanagement system that ensures theagency/school is providing quality services.

November, 1996 - Australian Seminars(Perth, Melbourne); Canadian Seminars(Halifax, NS)

December, 1996 - US Seminars(Sacramento, CA)

January, 1997 - US Seminars (New YorkCity Area)

Other venues will be arranged and announced at alater date. For detailed, current information on anyseminar, contact:



Telephone: (803) 731-8597Fax: (803) 731-8598

Internet: [email protected] Free (USA and Canada): (800) 457-5575

In Australia - Jeffrey McCubbery (054) 395 305In England - Cherry Isherwood (01562) 747 881

Assessment and Analysis of Severeand Challenging BehaviorGary W. LaVigna & Thomas J. Willis

This competency-based trainingpracticum provides participants with theclinical skills required to design andimplement person-centered multielementnonaversive support plans.Los Angeles • July, 1997

A Conference to Advance PositivePractices in the Field of ChallengingBehavior

Enrollment l imited to previousparticipants in IABA’s Summer Institute andLongitudinal Training.London • February, 1997

Positive Approaches to SolvingBehavior Challenges and The PeriodicService ReviewGary W. LaVigna & Thomas J. Willis

Positive Approaches… are 2 and 3 dayseminars that present IABA’s multielementmodel for providing person centerednonaversive behavioral supports to peoplewith challenging behavior. These seminarscover Basic Principles of NonaversiveBehavior Support, Behavioral Assessmentand Emergency Management. Assuring

Printed Resources Available from IABA

institute for applied behavior analysis the positive practices

Documents