DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 1 DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF OTHER BEHAVIOR (DRO) IN AN ADULT WITH SMITHMAGENIS SYNDROME By Tanya M. Hough A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Psychology Kaplan University 2013 UMI Number: 1541043 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 1541043 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 2 KAPLAN UNIVERSITY Abstract Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO) in Adult with Smith Magenis Syndrome By Tanya M. Hough The effectiveness of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) with an extinction component was evaluated with two target behaviors with an adult with Smith Magenis Syndrome (SMS) residing in the community who displayed elopement and physical aggression. The intervention included DRO using a fixed-time schedule of reinforcement, paired with extinction when elopement and physical aggression occurred. DRO was demonstrated to be effective in reducing the target behaviors of elopement and physical aggression, resulting in a 79% reduction of elopement and 100% decrease in physical aggression in the group home. Currently, there is a significant need for research using behavioral interventions to decrease challenging behaviors in adults diagnosed with SMS, as very little has been published on this topic. Keywords: Keywords: Physical Aggression, Elopement, Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior, Extinction, Smith Magenis Syndrome DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 3 Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures ..................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 6 Hypotheses/Research Questions ................................................................................................... 13 Method ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 13 Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 19 Discussion............................................................................................................................................ 25 Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 25 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 27 References ........................................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A: FAST Structured Interview Form................................................................................. 33 Appendix B: FAST Rating Scale and Scoring Summary .................................................................. 36 Appendix C: Direct Observation Forms ............................................................................................. 38 Appendix D: Data Sheets .................................................................................................................... 41 DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 4 List of Tables and Figures Number Page 1. Table 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 21 2. Table 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 21 3. Figure 1 ................................................................................................................................... 23 4. Figure 2 ................................................................................................................................... 24 DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 5 Acknowledgments The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to my BCBA supervisor, Alfred Brewin, for his support throughout the thesis writing process. The author also wishes to thank her thesis adviser, Dr. Edward Cumella, for his wisdom, wonderful insight, and mentoring, as well as her Thesis Committee-Dr. Natasha Chung and Dr. Jessica Tischner. The author is very thankful to the community provider that allowed her to review client records to extract data for analysis in this thesis. Without their support and willingness, this thesis would not exist DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 6 Smith-Magenis Syndrome (SMS) is a genetic disorder caused by the deletion of the 17p11.2 chromosome as a result of haploinsufficiency, where part of the diploid cell is inactive due to mutation and affects one genes, the retinoic acid-induced 1 (RAI1). This syndrome affects multiple aspects of the individual’s life that include behavioral, intellectual, emotional, and social functioning. It occurs in 1 of 25,000 births (Elsea & Girirajan, 2008; Finucane & HaasGivler, 2009; Laje, Bernert, Morse, Pao, & Smith, 2010; Taylor & Oliver, 2008). SMS manifests as a complicated neurobehavioral disorder that is characterized by mild to moderate intellectual disability and delays in speech and language development (Sloneem, Oliver, Udwin, & Woodcock, 2011). Dykens, Finucane, and Gayley (1997) developed a cognitive and behavior profile of SMS. A cognitive and behavioral profile is imperative in understanding the behavioral phenotype of this neurobehavioral disorder and developing effective interventions addressing the problem behavior(s). This is the first study to examine distinctive cognitive and behavioral features of adolescents and adults with SMS (Dykens, Finucane, & Gayley, 1997). The study consisted of ten participants, two male and eight female, between 14 and 51 years-old with moderate to mild intellectual disabilities and residing in institutional settings. A variety of assessments were conducted with each participant to determine their cognitive functioning and behaviors, both adaptive and maladaptive. Results demonstrated cognitive limitations with specific abilities such as sequential processing. Results also identified maladaptive behavior unique to this complex chromosomal disorder. People with SMS share common physical features consisting of small stature and short fingers, flattened facial features with flat mid-face and head shape, and a broad nasal bridge. Some other physical facial features include a down-turned mouth and prominent jaw. These DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 7 physical features become more distinctive as the person transitions into adulthood (Dykens, Finucane, & Gayley, 1997; Finucane & Haas-Givler, 2009; Martin, Wolters, & Smith, 2006). Individuals with SMS tend to have an engaging and outgoing personality. These individuals socialize with others easily and usually make friends quickly (Finucane & HaasGivler, 2009). However, these individuals also present challenging behaviors that are characteristic of SMS. Challenging behaviors include self-injurious behavior, temper tantrums, physical aggression, hyperactivity, disruptive behavior, and sleep disturbances. These behaviors occur throughout the affected individual’s life (Finucane & Haas-Givler, 2009; Martin, Wolters, & Smith, 2006; Taylor & Oliver, 2008). Martin, Wolters, and Smith (2006) offered the first study providing an in-depth account of the relationship between cognitive functioning and adaptive and maladaptive behaviors displayed by children with SMS. This was also the first study where information was gathered using objective, valid assessment procedures (Martin, Wolters, & Smith, 2006). Dykens and Smith (1998) was comprised of two studies that compared maladaptive behaviors in children and adolescents with SMS to problem behavior in children and adolescents with both Prader-Willi Syndrome and nonspecified intellectual disabilities. The first study examined the rate of different problem behaviors in the three groups. The second study assessed distinctive behavioral patterns in the SMS group. A total of 105 participants, 45 males and 60 females, were enrolled in the first study. Only the SMS group was used in the second study. Participants ranged from four to 20 years-old and resided at home with their families (Dykens & Smith, 1998). In the first study, parents completed a child behavior checklist, which consisted of 112 problem behaviors. In the second study, parents of participants with SMS completed a DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 8 stereotypy checklist, self-injury checklist, sleep history checklist, and the child behavior checklist used in the first study. Results indicated that children and adolescents with SMS showed significantly higher rates of problem behavior compared to the other groups. Although there was some overlap in problem behavior between the three groups, the behavior patterns varied clearly between the groups. Participants with SMS slept less, demonstrated higher rates of hyperactivity and greater demand for attention, and were more emotionally labile compared to their counterparts (Dykens & Smith, 1998). Behavioral and pharmacological interventions are two approaches to treating the challenging behaviors of individuals diagnosed with SMS. Laje, Bernert, Morse, Pao, and Smith (2010) investigated the use of psychotropic medication on disruptive behavior in children with SMS. The authors used retrospective data from 62 participants diagnosed with SMS. Medication that had been prescribed to these individuals included stimulants, anti-depressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, alpha 2 agonists, and benzodiazepines. Results indicated that medication taken for challenging behaviors varied widely. The authors concluded that psychotropic medication, sleep aides, mood stabilizers, and other types of medications did not appear to provide consistent effectiveness in reducing problem behaviors in children with SMS (Laje, Bernert, Morse, Pao, & Smith, 2010). An individual diagnosed with SMS will present challenging behaviors that create high levels of familial stress and often a pessimistic outlook in the family (Hodapp, Fidler, & Smith, 1998). Despite the severe behavioral challenges this population presents, there are currently no studies examining the effectiveness of applied behavior analysis (ABA) techniques in addressing DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 9 the problem behavior of adults with SMS. The lack of research in this area makes it more difficult to design an effective treatment plan utilizing ABA. Taylor and Oliver (2008) examined the functional relationship between the social environment and maladaptive behaviors of children and adolescents with SMS. This is one of the first studies employing components of a functional behavior assessment to investigate the association between the environment and problem behavior in children and adolescents with SMS. The authors looked at the impact of social interaction on disruptive, aggressive, and selfinjurious behaviors. Participants were comprised of five children, three female and two male, diagnosed with SMS, between three and 13 years-old, with moderate to severe intellectual disability. Direct observations were conducted in the participants’ school setting to record environmental events, frequency and duration of the three target behaviors. No behavioral intervention was introduced to address the variables maintaining the problem behavior (Taylor & Oliver, 2008). A co-occurrence analysis was completed to evaluate the connection between environmental conditions and frequency of target behaviors. Results of the study demonstrated that a decrease in attention led to participant’s exhibiting the problem behavior that resulted in adult attention. That is, results established a functional relationship between adult attention and problem behavior with children and adolescents with SMS. The authors recommended the need for more studies using ABA techniques to gain a better comprehension of the function(s) of problem behaviors in people with SMS (Taylor & Oliver, 2008). Sloneem, Oliver, Udwin, and Woodcock (2011) extended this research on the functional relationship between the environment and problem behavior in children and adults with SMS. Participants consisted of 40 children and adults with SMS between four and 39 years-old. Most of the participants resided at home with their families, and a small percentage received DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 10 residential care. This study employed several assessment tools measuring the maladaptive behaviors of the participants and under which environmental conditions the subjects were more likely to display the behaviors. Testing procedures were carried out along with structured interviews and assessment techniques with the participants’ parents, guardians, or caregivers. The authors explored five environmental functions of aggressive behavior that included attention, escape, self-stimulation, tangible, and pain and discomfort. Rating scales used to assess the functions indicated that attention was the highest ranking variable (Sloneem, Oliver, Udwin, & Woodcock, 2011). This remains preliminary research, and clearly the need remains for additional research in this area. Differential reinforcement is where reinforcement is only provided for a response that is part of a larger response class and meets a specified criterion, which includes topography, frequency, and/or duration of the target behavior (Cooper, Heron, & Howard, 2007). Differential reinforcement is a widely used technique for decreasing undesired behavior, such as physical aggression or elopement. Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO) is one type of differential reinforcement where reinforcement is provided for the absence of the target behavior for a specified time interval. For example, the person could be watching television, coloring, or cleaning, but still earn contingent on the absence of the target response (Cooper, Heron, & Howard, 2007). DRO is an ABA intervention commonly used to address the variable maintaining the problem behavior. There is little empirical research investigating the effectiveness of DRO with SMS, despite the widespread use of this intervention in various settings with other individuals who have developmental disabilities. Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, and Mazaleski (1993) evaluated the effectiveness of Noncontingent Reinforcement (NCR) and DRO in reducing attention-maintained self-injurious DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 11 behavior, a problem behavior common in SMS. The authors initially hypothesized that NCR would be more effective in decreasing participants’ problem behavior. However, results demonstrated that DRO was as effective as NCR in reducing self-injury (Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, & Mazaleski, 1993) Mazaleski, Iwata, Vollmer, Zarcone, and Smith (1993) examined the reinforcement and extinction components of DRO, which was comprised of two studies. The first experiment examined the role of the reinforcement element of DRO and explored preferred versus nonpreferred arbitrary stimuli used to reinforce the absence of the problem behavior. The second study was later added to investigate the role of the extinction component of DRO. Both studies consisted of three female participants between 32 and 42 years-old, diagnosed with profound to severe developmental disability and residing in a long-term institutional setting. Results of the first study indicated that preference of different stimuli had little significance when attention was the primary function of the target behavior. Identifying the variables maintaining the behavior is critical for DRO to be effective. Results of the second study demonstrated that extinction is an essential factor in DRO with this population (Mazaleski, Iwata, Vollmer, Zarcone, & Smith, 1993). Heard and Watson (1999) measured the efficacy of a social contingency in treating wandering behavior in adults diagnosed with dementia. Participants consisted of four females between 79 and 83 years-old residing in a nursing home. The DRO consisted of an extinction component contingent on the maladaptive behavior occurring. Direct observations and Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) tracking was used to determine the function of wandering behavior. Results of the study demonstrated that the social contingency in the DRO was effective in decreasing wandering in all four participants (Heard & Watson, 1999). DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 12 Differential Reinforcement of Lower Response Rate (DRL) is another type of differential reinforcement. DRL is where reinforcement is contingent on the target response occurring at a lower rate than a pre-set criterion for a specified time interval. The goal is to gradually decrease the number of responses during a specified time period (Cooper, Heron & Howard, 2007). Singh, Dawson, and Manning (1981) examined the efficacy of spaced responding DRL to address pervasive stereotypic responding, a behavior that is often seen in persons with SMS. Spaced responding DRL is where reinforcement is contingent on a minimum timeframe where there is an absence of the target behavior from the previous response to next response (Cooper, Heron, & Howard, 2007). Participants consisted of three adolescents females between 15 and 18 years-old with profound intellectual disabilities and residing institutional settings most of their lives. Results demonstrated that an incremental spaced responding DRL was effective in decreasing stereotypic responding in all three participants (Singh, Dawson, & Manning, 1981). In summary, the peer-reviewed literature contains very few studies of ABA techniques with SMS children and adolescents, none with SMS adults, and a few studies of similar behaviors in persons with other diagnoses. Thus, there is an immense need for research using behavioral interventions to decrease severe and challenging behaviors in adults diagnosed with SMS. The lack of research using ABA interventions to address socially inappropriate and unsafe behaviors makes it challenging for caregivers and direct care staff to work with this population. These severe challenging behaviors are dangerous and can lead to increased risks for the person and others. As such, the present study provides a unique contribution to expanding research on effective ABA interventions addressing the variables that maintain problem behavior in adults with SMS in a community setting. The purpose of this present study is to evaluate the DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 13 effectiveness of a DRO in decreasing attention maintained elopement and physical aggression in an adult with SMS. It is hypothesized that the intervention will be demonstrated as effective in reducing the target behaviors. Method Participant To meet the age criteria for this study, the individual had to be 21 years or older diagnosed with SMS. To meet the inclusion criteria for an intellectual disability, the individual had to be diagnosed by a licensed medical or psychological practitioner with an intellectual disability that originated before the age of 18 years old. To be diagnosed with an intellectual disability the person would need an intellectual quotient (IQ) of 70 or below and significant deficits in adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior consists of conceptual, social, and practical skills (American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 2012). The participant’s IQ was determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III (WAIS-III, 1997) (Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis). The final inclusion criterion is severe challenging behavior consisting of elopement and physical aggression documented for six months prior to this study and including behavior interventions that have been unsuccessful in decreasing the problem behavior. The participant selected for this study is Edna (a pseudonym), a 36 year-old female diagnosed with SMS and a mild intellectual disability. Edna has been displaying severe challenging behaviors in her group home. The participant currently resides in a private community-based group home and attends a day program in the Northeast US. Prior to transitioning into a community based group home, the participant resided in an institutional setting for 16 years. The facility delivered services using an Intermediate Care Facilities for DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 14 Individuals with Mental Retardation (ICF/MR) Model. The ICF/MR is a Medicaid benefit that enables the state to provide individualized and multi-faceted health care and rehabilitation services encouraging development and growth of the person’s functional status and independence (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, n.d.). Consequently, the participant’s adjustment into a private group home in the community has been difficult. Information on Edna’s overall adaptive functioning level was obtained from the Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP; Pyo, 2012) that was conducted at her previous placement. The ICAP can be used to assess the frequency and perceived severity of maladaptive behavior (Pyo, 2012). The ICAP is a widely used instrument that measures five domains of functioning; areas assessed consist of motor skills, social skills, communication skills, personal and community living ability, and broad independence. Edna functions at approximately six years-old for social skills, communication skills, and broad independence; seven years-old for motor and community living skills; and nine years-old for personal living skills. Edna’s ICAP scores indicate that she needs regular personal care and close supervision. Edna was admitted to an institutional setting as a child due to severe challenging behaviors at home and the need for a more structured environment. At her previous placement, she had a behavior support plan in place that addressed four target behaviors. The challenging behaviors targeted for reduction were physical aggression; property destruction; refusing to complete her daily routine; and disruptive behavior. Physical aggression was defined as Edna hitting and kicking others. Property destruction was defined as destroying property such as throwing objects at another person and/or ripping the mirror of vehicles. Non-compliance was defined as Edna refusing to complete her daily routine, which included refusing to listen to directions from direct care staff or completing chores. Disruptive behavior was defined as DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 15 pestering and teasing others, starting fights, cursing, and/or yelling at others. The behavior plan consisted of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) for compliance to her daily schedule, prompts prior to activity change, verbal redirection, and extinction. Her challenging behaviors decreased over time at her prior placement. However, physical aggression, disruptive behavior, property destruction, and noncompliance significantly increased following Edna’s community integration. Elopement was a behavior that emerged following her admission to the group home. Elopement consisted of Edna running out of the group home, leaving the yard, and running down the street away from staff. Elopement appears to be a historical behavior that occurred long before her move to the group home. Edna may have a history of running away from staff, but the behavior was not socially significant because she resided on a campus setting and had built-in safety boundaries regarding where she could run to. It is also possible that elopement is an emerging behavior that was reinforced over time following her move into the community. Elopement in the community is a socially significant behavior that poses a detrimental risk to the personal safety of the participant and staff working with the participant. The significant increase in frequency and severity of physical aggression, disruptive behavior, property destruction, non-compliance, and elopement may perhaps be attributed to the quick transition from the institutional setting to the community based group home. The integration process into the community occurred rapidly, without a slow transition from the institution to the privately operated group home. The environment and levels of restriction between residing in the institution and living in the community are dramatically different. Behavior strategies addressing problem behaviors were developed following her move into the group home. A behavior support plan for the group home was developed to address DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 16 physical aggression, disruptive behavior, property destruction, non-compliance, and elopement. Behavioral interventions included DRO, extinction, and redirection. The DRO consisted of a three opportunities to earn a chip throughout the day when she went a period of time without engaging in the target behaviors. The criteria for earning the chip included keeping her hands to herself, staying on group home property, and following her daily schedule. This behavior plan was ineffective at reducing problem behaviors. This DRO program may have been ineffective due to the long intervals between opportunities to earn. Another limitation of this treatment program was the protracted time between earning the chip, indicating that she had met the criteria to earn, and having the ability to exchange the chip in for the reinforcer. An additional limitation of this intervention was starting the plan with the criteria set too high. Edna was unsuccessful in meeting the criteria on a consistent basis; thus, problem behaviors increased in the home. Response Measurement and Interobserver Agreement Structured interviews and rating scales were completed with direct care staff in the participant’s group home. Observations were conducted in the group home. Edna lives in a single-level home with four other peers. Three staff members are on duty for all three shifts and are all engaged in activities with those in the home, as well as the maintenance of the home. During the day, Monday through Friday, Edna attends another agency for day program services. Baseline and treatment measures were collected on a daily basis using a data sheet to track physical aggression, elopement, and non-compliance. Data was collected using a partialinterval recording in hour intervals to track the occurrence of the four target behaviors--physical aggression, non-compliance, elopement, and disruptive behavior. An Antecedent-BehaviorConsequence (A-B-C) format was used to track disruptive behavior. ABC data collection is a DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 17 component of a descriptive functional behavior assessment. ABC data collection involved continuous recording of disruptive behavior, where staff documented the antecedent events occurring immediately before the behavior, the topography of the disruptive behavior, and consequential events immediately following the target response (Cooper, Heron, & Howard, 2007); see Appendix D for data recording sheets. Interobserver agreement was collected once a week in the group home along with another behaviorist. Staff was provided feedback on accurate treatment implementation following the observations. Interobserver agreements for the rates of the four target behaviors were computed using the total count interobserver agreement formula (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). The total count percentage of agreement for each observation session was calculated by taking the smaller amount of intervals, dividing it by the larger amount, and multiplying by 100. Physical Aggression was defined as the participant spitting, punching, biting, swinging at others, kicking, and/or hitting others with an open/closed hand. It also includes using objects as a weapon. Elopement was defined as the participant running out of the group home, leaving the yard, and running down the street away from staff. Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO) will include opportunities to earn throughout the day. Earning time will start at every hour that Edna does not elope from the group home, when she will have the opportunity to engage in one-to-one activity of her choice with staff for 10 minutes. A timer will be used to indicate when she has met the criteria for earning for that hour. At the end of 10 minutes, staff will reset the timer and let Edna know that when she stays in the group home, she can earn the one-to-one activity with staff. Activities can include a game of Uno, Go Fish, other card game, coloring, board game, and/or having a one-to-one conversation on a topic that Edna chooses. When the criterion is met for not eloping from the DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 18 group home for seven days, the criterion will expand to include physical aggression. Time between earning will increase as Edna continues to meet the established criterion. Interventions also consist of a structured schedule where Edna’s day was broken down into set time intervals outlining what day looked like. A structured schedule allows Edna to know what her day looks like so she's prepared for the various tasks and activities that occurs. Procedure A descriptive assessment was conducted to determine the function of the problem behaviors. Target behaviors were assessed using the Functional Assessment Screening Tool (FAST; Dunlap & Kincaid, 2001); see Appendices A and B. The FAST is an indirect assessment tool used to gain more information on a behavior of interest. The FAST is comprised of a structured interview and rating scales. The structured interview was conducted with direct care staff working with the participant to gain information on the topography of the behavior, the environmental condition when the behavior is least and most likely to occur, and what occurs immediately before and following the behavior (Dunlap & Kincaid, 2001). The FAST rating scale is a 16-item Likert scale measuring four conditions: attention/preferred item; escape from demand; self-stimulation; and pain attenuation. Direct observations were conducted in the participant’s natural environment; see Appendix C for observation form. A behavior support plan was developed to address the severe challenging behavior in the group home. Staff was trained on the SMS personality, distinctive physical characteristics, and SMS behavioral phenotype. The SMS training also consisted of how to manage problem behaviors. Recommendations included a highly structured schedule to create a consistent routine for the person, keeping the person engaged, minimal attention to maladaptive behaviors, maintaining DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 19 positive interactions, providing clear instructions and expectations, and not negotiating/arguing with the person. A multiple baseline across behaviors design was used to measure the DRO. The intervention was progressive in nature where after seven days of no occurrence of elopement, the criterion increased to include physical aggression. Edna had the opportunity to earn access to one-to-one attention from staff for ten minutes on an hourly basis throughout the day in the group home. After seven days of absence in physical aggression and elopement, the criterion of the DRO was increased to include non-compliance. Staff working in the group home were trained how to implement the initial steps of the DRO. The last behavior addressed was disruptive behavior where reinforcement was contingent on the behavior occurring at a lower rate than the set criterion. Results Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) Results of the behavior interview were used to develop the operational definition for elopement and physical aggression. The FBA assisted in identifying antecedent and consequential environmental events of the target behaviors. Responses on the behavior interview indicated elopement and physical aggression occurred to elicit staff attention. Respondents also identified elopement and physical aggression as the primary behaviors of concern. Responses of physical aggression consisted of spitting, punching, biting, swinging at others, kicking, and/or hitting others with an open/closed hand. This also included using objects around the house as weapons. All respondents reported that Edna would display disruptive and non-compliant behavior prior to both physical aggression and elopement from the group home. Group home DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 20 staff members implementing the intervention were trained to engage the participant in a positive manner when reminding her of the contingencies to earn. Responses from the behavior interview and analysis on the A-B-C data indicated that the most common antecedents included the participant wanting to engage in an activity at the time, staff attention not being immediately available to her, or participant being asked to do something. The participant’s responses varied depending on what was going on in the environment. For example, she was more likely to display disruptive and non-compliant behaviors when asked to do something; however, she would often engage in disruptive behavior that would escalate to physically aggressive or elopement behaviors when staff attention was not available immediately. Consequential events consisted of staff telling her to display appropriate behavior, trying to engage her in an ongoing activity, ignoring the problem behavior, telling her to stop, and/or trying to redirect her. Responses indicated there was not a consistent consequential pattern following the occurrences of physical aggression and elopement. According to the FAST results for elopement listed in Table 1, attention/preferred items was the primary function of elopement, with a total score of 3.5. This was followed by sensory stimulation, with a total score of 2.5, then escape from task, with a total score of 2.0. The results suggested that Edna was more likely to elope from the group home to gain attention from staff or when access to attention/preferred activity/item was not immediately available. According to the results for FAST for physical aggression listed in Table 2, attention/preferred items and sensory stimulation were the primary functions, each with a total score of 3.0. This was followed by escape from task, with a total score of 2.0. Disruptive behaviors, where the participant made verbal threats towards others, cursed at others, or threatened to run away or leave the group home, usually occurred prior to the more severe DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 21 behaviors where the participant became physically aggressive toward others or left the group home property. Table 1 FAST Results for Elopement Attention/ Escape Preferred Items Sensory Pain Stimulation Attenuation Staff 1 3 1 3 1 Staff 2 4 3 2 0 Mean 3.5 2.0 2.5 0.5 Escape Sensory Pain Stimulation Attenuation Table 2 FAST Results for Physical Aggression Attention/ Preferred Items Staff 1 4 3 3 0 Staff 2 2 1 3 0 Mean 3.0 2.0 3.0 0 The behavior chain tended to begin with the participant screaming at staff to “shut up” or “leave me alone, you b*&^$!” When staff made verbal comments to the participant, she tended to continue to exhibit disruptive behavior. She might be trying to gain the attention a particular staff member when that staff member was engaged with another client. If attention was not immediately available in the environment, Edna was more likely to display non-compliance with DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 22 the other staff. When staff did not provide verbal attention to the behavior, she might walk away from staff or threaten to leave and go out onto the porch, follow staff around, or slam doors within the home. At times, she would leave the group home property, where staff had to follow her as she ran down the street. At times she attacked staff from behind or became physically aggressive to the point where she met the criteria of physical restraint or the incident resulted in a 911 call. Observations in the participant’s natural environment supported results of the structured behavior interview and the analysis of the A-B-C data, both of which suggested that the identified target behaviors were maintained by attention. The outcome of the descriptive assessment supported using a DRO to address physical aggression and elopement. Because results of the assessment indicated behavior was maintained by attention, staff members were trained not to provide attention when the participant was displaying physical aggression or when she had eloped from the group home. Staff members were instructed to periodically remind the participant in a positive manner about the criteria to earn. Treatment Implementation The intervention was selected based upon the results of the FBA. Results from the FBA indicated that the selected target behaviors were primarily maintained by attention. The behavior support plan was only implemented in the group home. The intervention was comprised of planned ignoring, redirection, and the DRO. Prior to the implementation of the treatment, staff members were trained on the intervention techniques of the behavior support plan at a staff meeting. Staff members were instructed to follow the participant when she eloped from the group home, but not to talk to her when she was engaging in elopement behavior. DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 23 The DRO used a fixed-interval schedule for delivery of reinforcement. For every hour that the participant did not display elopement from the group home, she had the opportunity to engage in a limited activity of her choice with one staff member for 10 minutes. A timer was used to indicate when she met the criteria for earning for that interval. At the end of the10 minutes, staff reset the timer and let the participant know that when she stayed in the group home and kept her hands to herself, she could earn the activity with staff. Activities selected were of the participant’s choosing. When the criterion was met for absence of elopement, physical aggression, and non-compliance for seven days, time between earning increased as the participant continued to meet the established criteria. Data were collected in the group home setting to determine if elopement and physical aggression would decrease. In the group home setting, dependent measures included a data sheet with half-hour intervals using partial interval recording to measure the rate of elopement and physical aggression. Staff also indicated on the data sheet whether the participant met the criterion for the specified interval and the activity selected by the participant. Treatment Outcomes DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 24 15 14 Baseline DRO 13 12 Occurrences of Elopement 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Dates Figure 1: Baseline and DRO on the occurrence of elopement Elopement occurred at an average of 4.8 episodes per month during the baseline condition. The occurrence of elopements decreased to three occurrences following the implementation of the intervention (Figure 1). This was a 38% decrease in the eloping behavior during the first month of the intervention condition. There was an increase in the occurrence of elopement the following month. Elopement increased by 100%, doubling, which was attributable to two days during the month where there was a major disruption in the participant’s structured routine and during which the incidents of elopement occurred. Once this issue was addressed, eloping behavior significantly decreased the following month, by 83% (Figure 1). Overall, from baseline to month four of the intervention, elopement behaviors decreased from 4.8 to 1.0 per month, a decrease of 79%. DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 25 35 Baseline DRO Occurrences of Physica Aggression 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Dates Figure 2: Baseline and DRO on the occurrence of physical aggression Physical aggression occurred at an average of 2.9 episodes per month during the baseline condition. The participant met the first criterion within the first week. The criterion for the DRO was then increased to include physical aggression. The number of physical aggression episodes increased to 19 occurrences per month in the first month following the implementation of the intervention (Figure 2). This can be attributed to a change in how data was collected. Data was initially collected using an A-B-C format, but was switched to a data sheet using one hour intervals and partial interval recording to measure the occurrences of elopement and physical aggression. The method of data collection was changed to increase accuracy as partial interval recording is an easier method for direct care staff. Moreover, A-B-C data were initially collected to establish a function of the participant’s aggressive and eloping behavior. In the third month, however, even using the new and more accurate method of data collection, there was a significant decrease in the occurrences of physical aggression, by 68%. Physical aggression DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 26 continued to significantly decrease during the final month, with 0 episodes, representing an overall decrease from baseline to month four of the intervention of 100% (Figure 2). Discussion It was hypothesized that a DRO intervention would be demonstrated as effective in reducing the target behaviors of elopement and physical aggression in an adult with SMS. Results appear to confirm this hypothesis, as elopement was decreased by 79% and aggression by 100% between baseline and the end of intervention. Results of the functional behavior assessment conducted in this study supported previous findings indicating a functional relationship between the participant’s behavior and the social environment (Sloneem, Oliver, Udwin, & Woodcock, 2011; Taylor & Oliver, 2008). The results of this study were also consistent with previous studies using differential reinforcement as an effective intervention to address problem behavior (Heard &Watson, 1999; Mazaleski, Iwata, Vollmer, Zarcone, and Smith, 1993; Singh, Dawson, & Manning, 1981; Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, & Mazaleski, 1993). Currently, there is an immense need for research using behavioral interventions to decrease challenging behaviors in adults diagnosed with SMS. This study is the first study known to this author that uses ABA techniques to address socially significant problem behaviors in this population. This study also provided a unique opportunity to expand research on SMS to include an ABA intervention addressing problem behavior in an adult with SMS residing in the community. Elopement and physical aggression were selected because they were socially significant behaviors that posed a risk of injury to staff, peers, and the participant. Factors in this study that promoted decreases in elopement and physical aggression included staff training on the behavior support plan prior to the implementation of the intervention. Staff members were retrained on the DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 27 intervention following an increase in elopement after initial implementation of the intervention. The group home also increased communication with the day program, which improved consistency in addressing the target behaviors. However, it must be noted that the intervention was not generalized to the day program because the participant attended a day program operated by an outside agency, so we were unable to collect any data from the day program. Results of this study supported the results from Taylor and Oliver (2008) on a functional relationship between attention and problem behavior in someone with SMS. Taylor and Oliver (2008) demonstrated that a decrease in attention led to participants exhibiting the problem behavior that resulted in adult attention. That is, results established a functional relationship between adult attention and problem behaviors with children and adolescents with SMS. The authors had recommended the need for more studies using ABA techniques to gain a better understanding of the function(s) of problem behaviors in adults with SMS (Taylor & Oliver, 2008). The extinction component of the DRO seemed to play a critical role in the effectiveness of the intervention used in the present study. The results of the present study were consistent with Mazaleski, Iwata, Vollmer, Zarcone, and Smith (1993), where results demonstrated that extinction is an essential factor in the DRO. Because the participant’s behavior in the present study was maintained by attention, it was essential that attention was not provided during times when the participant was engaging in eloping or physically aggressive behaviors. This study used a DRO to address attention maintained elopement and physical aggression. Findings were also consistent with Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, and Mazaleski (1993). These authors evaluated the effectiveness of an NCR and DRO in reducing attentionmaintained self-injurious behavior, a problem behavior common in SMS. Results demonstrated DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 28 that the DRO was as effective as the NCR in reducing self-injurious behavior (Vollmer et al., 1993). Thus, future research should compare the effects of NCR and DRO within the adult SMS population. It would also be interesting to compare the effects of an NCR, DRO, and Momentary DRO (MDRO). Since the present study used a fixed-time schedule for the DRO, it would be useful to compare whether a fixed-time or variable-time schedule is more effective for the DRO. There are limitations of the current study which should be considered when interpreting the results and planning future research. First, the intervention was carried out in the group home only. Treatment was not generalized to the day program since the participant attended a day program operated by an outside agency to which it was not possible to have access. Future research should look at generalizing treatment to multiple settings. Future research could also focus on an extended study that assesses long term generalization effects of a DRO on problem behavior. Second, this treatment was only used with one individual. It should be noted that this is the first study known to this author using a behavioral intervention with an adult with SMS residing in a community setting. Future research should focus on replicating this design and comparing the differences between treatment implementation, with and without the extensive measures taken, across multiple subjects. A third limitation to this study is that treatment was carried out in the group home. It was impossible to control for extraneous variables that could have influenced changes in the target behaviors, such as staff turnover. Future research should focus on using more extensive measures to control for extraneous variables. It would be useful to know the impact that staff training has on the effectiveness of the treatment. Staff members were trained prior to the intervention being implemented, when the criterion was increased, and following an increase in elopement. It would DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 29 be helpful to assess if the initial training along with integrity checks with or without immediate feedback and/or modeling techniques would increase accuracy of treatment implementation. A fourth limitation is that maintaining a continuous schedule of reinforcement could lead to satiation of the reinforcer. In order to maintain the effectiveness of treatment, it is necessary to fade the continuous schedule of reinforcement over time to match the schedule of reinforcement in the natural environment. In the present study, the DRO used a fixed time schedule where the participant had the opportunity to earn an activity with staff at the end of every hour she met the criterion. Criterion was increased by adding in additional target behaviors, rather than increasing the time between earning opportunities. It would be useful to examine the long-term effects of continually increasing the criterion by the number of target behaviors compared to increasing the criterion by increasing time between earning. It would also be useful to assess the effects of simultaneously increasing the time between earning and adding additional behaviors to the criterion to earn. Future research could focus on the effects of fading out the criterion through extending the time between earning versus adding additional target behaviors. There were sources of potential bias when recording response measures and implementing treatment in the present study. It is important to note that extensive measures were taken to decrease the probability of the internal validity of this study being compromised. Although extensive measures were taken to train group home staff on treatment implementation, there were still risks for attention to be provided following physical aggression or when the participant eloped from the group home. There were also transient staff members who occasionally worked in the group home or worked in the home for the first time. Transient staff did not attend the training on proper implementation of the plan. DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 30 Overall, the DRO intervention was demonstrated as effective in reducing the target behaviors of elopement and physical aggression in an adult with SMS. Results also suggest the benefits of using a DRO with an extinction component. Yet future research might evaluate the effectiveness of the DRO to the MDRO. As such, this remains a preliminary study using an ABA intervention to address severe challenging behaviors in an adult with SMS. The need remains for additional research using behavioral interventions with individuals with SMS. DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 31 References American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. (2012). Retrieved http://www.aaidd.org/content_100.cfm?navID=21. Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (no date). Retrieved from http://www.bacb.com/index.php?page=57. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid. (no date). Intermediate care facilities for individuals with mental retardation (ICF/MR) [Fact Sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/DeliverySystems/Institutional-Care/Intermediate-Care-Facilities-for-Individuals-with-MentalRetardation-ICFMR.html. Cooper, J. O., Heward, W. L., & Heron, T. E. (2007). Applied behavior analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Dunlap, G., & Kincaid, D. (2001). The widening world of functional assessment: Comments on four manuals and beyond. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(3), 365-377. Dykens, E. M., Finucane, B. M., & Gayley, C. (1997). Brief report: Cognitive and behavioral profiles in person with Smith-Magenis Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27(2), 203-211. Dykens, E. M., & Smith, A. C. M. (1998). Distinctiveness and correlates of maladaptive behaviour in children and adolescents with Smith-Magenis Syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42(6), 481-489. Elsea, S. H., & Girirajan, S. (2008). Practical genetics: Smith-Magenis syndrome. European Journal of Human Genetics, 16, 412-421. Finucane, B., & Haas-Givler, B. (2009). Smith-Magenis syndrome: Genetic basis and clinical DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 32 implications. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 2, 134-148. Heard, K., & Watson, T. S. (1999). Reducing wandering by persons with dementia using differential reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 381-384. Hodapp, R. M., Fidler, D. J., & Smith, A. C. M. (1998). Stress and coping in families of children with Smith-Magenis syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42(5), 330341. Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (no date). Retrieved from http://www.iupui.edu/~flip/wechsler.html Laje, G., Bernert, R., Morose, R., Pao, M, & Smith, A. C. M. (2010). Pharmacological treatment of disruptive behavior in Smith-Magenis syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics, 154C (4), 463-468. Martin, S. C., Wolters, P. L, & Smith, A. C. M. (2006). Adaptive and maladaptive behavior in children with Smith-Magenis syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(4), 541-552. Doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0093-2. Mazaleski J. L., Iwata, B. A., Vollmer, T. R., Zarcone, J. R., & Smith, R. G. (1993). Analysis of the reinforcement and extinction components DRO contingencies with self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(2), 143-156. Pyo, G. (2012). Inventory for client and agency planning instructor training program [PowerPoint]. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.state.il.us/OneNetLibrary/27896/documents/By_Division/Division%20of %20DD/ICAP/ICAPPresentationHandout.pdf. DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 33 Singh, N. N., Dawson, M. J., & Manning, P. (1981). Effects of spaced responding DRL on the stereotyped behavior of profoundly retarded persons. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 521-526. Sloneem, J., Oliver, C., Udwin, O., & Woodcock, K. A. (2011). Prevalence, phenomenology, aetiology and predictors of challenging behavior in Smith-Magenis syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55(2), 138-151. Taylor, L., & Oliver, C. (2008). The behavioural phenotype of Smith-Magenis syndrome: Evidence for a gene-environment interaction. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52, 830-841. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01066.x. Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R., Smith, R. G., & Mazaleski J. L. (1993). The role of attention in the treatment of attention-maintained self-injurious behavior: Noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement of other behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(1), 9-21. DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT Appendix A: FAST Structured Interview Form 34 DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 35 DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 36 DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT Appendix B: FAST Rating Scale and Scoring Summary 37 DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 38 DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT Appendix C: Direct Observation Forms 39 DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 40 DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 41 DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT Appendix D: Data Sheets 42 DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT 43
© Copyright 2024