Participants
In the study by Mitteer et al. (2015), researchers aimed to assess and treat pica and the destruction of holiday decorations by a six-year-old girl by implementing differential reinforcement. The participant was a six-year-old girl with diagnosed Autism Spectrum Disorder who had been referred to receive treatment for pica and property destruction.
Methodology
The study setting was a therapy room that was frequently modified to accommodate various interventions (Mitteer et al., 2015). This study employed the ABCDCD reversal design, where phases A and B served as the baseline to observe behavior. At the same time, phases C and D entailed the implementation of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA). The target behavior was an increase in playing with toys and a reduction of the problem behavior.
The procedure used by the researchers began with two baseline contexts: the functional analysis context and the holiday decoration context. The two contexts aimed to identify the underlying problems and use the collected data for intervention implementation. The researchers then implemented DRA; in this case, the alternative behavior was to increase playing with toys and reduce property destruction (Mitteer et al., 2015). DRA was then implemented with a facial screen to reinforce the alternative behavior that was partly learned during the initial DRA phase.
Findings
The results indicate that Callie’s pica was automatically reinforced, despite the implementation of response blocking (M = 1.4 per minute). Property destruction was also high in the baseline context (M = 4.4 per minute). The implementation of DRA led to a decline in problem behavior (pica: M = 0.8, property destruction: M = 1.7 per minute), but its rate was still unacceptably high. Supplementation of DRA with the facial screen led to a decline in problem behavior to acceptable levels (pica: M = 0.1, property destruction: M = 0.4 per minute) (Mitteer et al., 2015). Removing the facial screen increased problem behavior, while its introduction reduced problem behavior.
Implications
The authors indicate that their study shows the importance of considering the social validity of behavioral treatments. They do not discuss any specific implications of their study. However, they infer the feasibility of using interventions to promote alternative behavior in response to problem behavior. Interventions for problem behavior aimed at developing alternative behaviors are also recommended for future research.
Reference
Mitteer, D., Romani, P., Greer, B., & Fisher, W. (2015). Assessment and treatment of pica and destruction of holiday decorations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(4), 912-917. Web.