Test 5 Flashcards
What are the advantages of the case study method
1- foster clinical innovation
2-cast doubt on prior theoretical assumptions
3-permit study of rare phenomena
4-develop new techniques
5-buttress theoretical views
6-refinement of clinical techniques
7-provide clinical data to support further investigations
What are the limitations of the case study method
1-cannot draw causal conclusions because there are too many uncontrolled factors
2-absence of experimental control
3-relies on retrospective, subjective descriptions
4-several techniques are administered simultaneously so we don’t get to analysis individual components
5-dont often use observable and replicable measures
6-cant control for threats to internal and construct validity
What is an A-B design
-simplest single case design
A-BL
B-treatment
What is the purpose of baseline
observation of natural frequency of the target behaviour
What limitations exist with an A-B design
-doesn’t state what caused the change in behaviour, maybe some other variables happened at the same time of treatment onset.
What is meant by forecasting
- predicting treatment effects based on BL
- can do via trend analysis
What is meant by interval validity
- whether the experiment was done right
- avoids confounding variables
What is meant by external validity
- it is the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized to other situations and to other people.
What is a confounding variable
-is an outside influence that changes the effect of a dependent and independent variable.
What is an A-B with follow-up design
follow up is data taken after treatment ends, an amount of time later.
What are multiple behaviours targeted
-take multiple measures of a single target behaviour.
what is habit reversal training
-teaching a person to become aware of their undesirable behaviour and train an incompatible behaviour
What is meant by booster treatment
-reinstatement of treatment in sessions following deterioration during follow up assessment.
What is covert sensitization
-an undesirable behavior is paired with an unpleasant image in order to eliminate that behaviour
What is an A-B-A design
- simplest, treatment intro then withdrawn (often called withdrawal design)
- If bx returns to BL you can say with high certainty that the treatment variable is responsible for change.
- replication with other participants strengthens conclusions.
What is sequential confounding?
- carry over effects
- ie: the influence of one treatment/phase on an adjacent treatment/phase..
What is the major limitation of an A-B-A design
- ethics, denies treatment as it ends on A
- sequential confounding limits generalization
- some skills don’t return to BL after being taught
What is an A-B-A-B design
- most pop
- provides 2 demonstrations for providing positive effects of treatment
- ends on treatment, can be continued after
- not always good to withdraw treatment
What are concurrent behaviours
-none target behaviours (side effects)
Why do you monitor concurrent behaviours
- determine response generalization
- Identification of potential negative side effects of treatment
- frequency of response may correlate with topography
What is experimenter bias and how do you overcome this
- the scientists performing the research influence the results
- try to eliminate the bias by taking data at the end (via video tapes?)
- little interactions noted in alcohol study
What is a B-A-B design
-starts and ends with treatment
What is the major limitation of a B-A-B design
-doesn’t include the change of the natural frequency of behaviour under study.
What is the major limitation of using single case designs with groups of subjects
-same as traditional group approach (averaging out effects, effects due to minorities, etc.)
What is an A-B-C-B design
C instead of returning to BL R+ is delivered NCR
-controls for attention placebo
What is the basis of experimental analysis of an A-B-C-B design
-Last three phases are where ea is derived from
R why
Schools are hesitant to use traditional exclusionary time outs.
Or maybe don’t have facilities.
Confusion between time out and seclusion.
Admin policies
Public opinion
TO may be ineffective
R S/L
S: more immediate can see other kids being reinforced less interruption L: disruption in whole class peer attention
R participants
5 7-18 all moderate to severe ID
David was the model for the other kids as he rarely showed inappropriate behaviours.
R setting
classroom went to 1.5 hrs each weekday
some verbal praise, mostly reprimands, edibles for body parts program.
R experimental design
ABCBC
BL
R+
TO + R+
follow up probe 1 yr later
R procedure
A: 7 days, usual class
B: 10 days R+ for all classroom activities (edible and social praise) every ~2.5m without bad bx. if bad, told to stop then moved on, R+ when they stopped being bad
researcher cues teacher when to R+
work ribbon bow tie during this condition and all others. Each one different colour
C: 12 days R+ every ~2.5m. when bad observer cued teacher to to remove ribbon. told kid they misbehaved= 3 min timeout. Additional volunteers helped record. To continued if bad when 3m had ended. Could view activities but not participate. Ribbon back on, several seconds then R+
B: 3 days
C: 11 days (with 1 day probe of B on 7th day).
R reliability and recording
students were observed simultaneously during consecutive 30s intervals. interval was =/- not frequency. -data converted into % of disturbance 85% agreement of occurrence 95% on non occurrence were assessed 1-4 times per condition - bx/total intervals.
R follow up
- one day follow up probe done. teacher had been running all components of the program
- reliability also assessed.
R results
Peter: 73-24-12 (ABC)no B, C4. Probe 15 Michael: 57-67-4-57-3. Probe 22 Chucks: 23-38-14-35-13. No probe data Calvin: 15-9-3-11-1. Probe 2.5 David: 6-4-4-19-0.
Totals: 42-34-7-30-4. Probe 14
follow up 6.8
R notes
- ribbon showed stimulus control
- did survey of acceptability 85% said they would consider the procedure
- replicated with 2 page summary, skilled teacher (had reduced bx in 5/8 boys with R+). Used with 3 boys and found it worked for all of them
R influences for success
- outsiders knew not to engage with children w/o ribbon
- Ribbon was reminder to teacher to Reinforce
- removal of R+ seemed instant
- increased R+ in class ensured it was preferred to TO
- TO allowed kids observer appropriate bx being R+
P background
- R+ works to eat the food, but still find packing and expulsions. no swallowing
- eating is bx chain, problems can occur at any point
- packing is dangerous
- current to extend previous literature
P participants/setting
4 children (2-5)
admitted for chronic food refusal
all had GTube. 2 dependent on it
P DV
- Packing any food larger than a pea in the mouth 30s after acceptance
- latency to clean mouth for 2 kids
- packing recorded per bite and converted into %
- acceptance (food being placed in the mouth past the lips with 5s of presentation)
- expulsion (any food/drink larger than a pea that had not yet been swallowed, but placed in the mouth and visible outside the lips)
- grams consumed (primal minus post meal food weights)
P reliability
scored 64, 23, 32, 21% of sessions -freq of bx sit-in the session by larger freq and times 100 -mean agreement for packing 98 acceptance 95.6 expulsions 98.8
P design
ABAB design
-multielement design for Devin (didn’t stay long)
P procedure
4 foods presented in each session, random prez.
presented with chopped or puree texture
-placed bolus on brush (not spoon)
-prior to study participants did acceptance program where 90% A and 0 expulsions. but acceptance equalled packing.
P Mary
- Rifton chair
-bite based 20
-3-4 meals per day (~40m per meal)
-done after 1hr even if not done
-meals around 1.5-2.5hrs apart
BL: single bite presented, take a bite.
self fed in 5s equalled social praise. non removal if IR
expelled food represented
token an toy if swallowed in 30s. highly preferred item at the end of session if she got 18 tokens
if packed, prompted every 30s
A:identical to bl except redistributed food in mouth contingent on packing- food placed on tongue
P Devin
-Highchair
-meals: 3-4 5min sessions (15-20min meals)
-if longer than 5 min, required to swallow the last bite
-done after 1hr even if not done
-meals around 1.5-2.5hrs apart
BL: put bite on spoon, take a bite.
accepted in 5s equalled social praise. non removal if IR
expelled food represented
brief praise if swallowed in 30s
NCR (attention and toys)
if packed, prompted every 30s
A:identical to bl except redistributed food in mouth was done immediately-food placed on tongue
D Carl
-Highchair
-meals: 3-4 5min sessions (15-20min meals)
-if longer than 5 min, required to swallow the last bite
-done after 1hr even if not done
-meals around 1.5-2.5hrs apart
BL: put bite on brush, take a bite.
accepted in 5s equalled social praise. non removal if IR
expelled food represented
brief praise if swallowed in 30s
if packed, prompted every 30s
A:identical to bl except redistributed food in mouth was done after 15s- food place don tongue
D Sarah
-Regular chair
-meals: 3-4 5min sessions (15-20min meals)
-if longer than 5 min, required to swallow the last bite
-done after 1hr even if not done
-meals around 1.5-2.5hrs apart
BL: put bite on brush, take a bite.
accepted in 5s equalled social praise. non removal if IR
expelled food represented
brief praise if swallowed in 30s
if packed, prompted every 30s
A:identical to bl except redistributed food in mouth was done after 15s - food placed on tongue
P results
- latency decrease and packing decreased
- food acceptance remained stable
- expulsions near 0
- grams consumed also increased during treatment
- showed successful replication, Mary and Devin similar data. Smaller improvements for other 2 participants
P why
- neg r don’t have to swallow or reconsume?
- may start by vomit to food?
- maybe because they don’t have well dev motor skills (intro food too early or late)
TO background
generally all people like food and praise, but some documentation shows otherwise
-eg timeouts R+/Punish/have no effect
TO E1 info
Laurie ASD, tantrums during class, not high freq but consistent across the day
- low appropriate bx. 0 social, 0 play, 100 stem
- done in class with observable mirror
- session 1 time prepay, 5 days per week, 15min each
- ran previously mastered test, stem blocked, candy R+
TO E1 procedure
-questioned whether opportunity to stem would serve as a reinforcer, and would restraint serve to punish
BL: non contingencies for tantrums
B: opportunity to engage. Tx held kid while still blowing them to stim 10s.
C: restrain of ss. restrained ss for 10s
TO E1 reliability and recording
occurrence of one or more tantrum bx. frequency of tantrums recorded by teacher and another naive observer. tracked in 5s intervals
-only one disagreement
-interval recording for stim
-ran 10 reliability measures with 2 in each fo the four conditions.
88ss
98t
TO E1 results
- T increased when stim allowed. 100 occurance during time out
- declined to 0 in reversal
TO E2 goal
to eliminate spitting and self injurious bx
- had TO contingent for these bx, was 90s, tx removed r+ and moved to a corner in the class
- TO not effective
TO E2 method
16yr male down syndrome, ID
limited RI, no social/appropriate play
BL 30min 10-30 instances of bx
-done in room with mirror, room divided by barrier
TO E2 DV
Self injurious behaviour - any repetitive making and breaking contact between on part of the body and another
2- Spitting - blowing through the lips so as to make them vibrate
TO E2 reliability
2 undergrad naive were observers
- checks done every 7th session in 4s intervals, separate for each bx.
- agreements over total time 100
TO E2 Procedure
sessions 5 times per week 30m each
1- To enriched or impoverished time in
a-new toys, prompted and praised to play with and food 30s
b- did matching task, prompted and praised with reward when done and food 30s
2-TO contingent on spitting or both s and injurious bx
90s remove rewards and turned away
TO E2 results
In enriched conditions TO became punisher
impoverished condition TO became reinforcer
