Caregiver preference for reinforcement-based interventions for problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne M. Gabor ◽  
Jennifer N. Fritz ◽  
Christopher T. Roath ◽  
Brittany R. Rothe ◽  
Denise A. Gourley
Keyword(s):  
Problem Behavior ◽  
Positive Reinforcement ◽  
Caregiver Preference

scholarly journals ABOLISHING AND ESTABLISHING OPERATION ANALYSES OF SOCIAL ATTENTION AS POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT FOR PROBLEM BEHAVIOR

2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly A. McGinnis ◽  
Nealetta Houchins-Juárez ◽  
Jill L. McDaniel ◽  
Craig H. Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
Problem Behavior ◽  
Positive Reinforcement ◽  
Social Attention ◽  
Establishing Operation

Positive Reinforcement Interventions in the Classroom

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.K. Luiselli
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Problem Behavior ◽  
Treatment Strategy ◽  
Behavior Disorders ◽  
Positive Reinforcement ◽  
Visually Impaired ◽  
Noncompliant Behavior ◽  
Management Problems ◽  
The Way

Positive reinforcement procedures represent a non-aversive treatment strategy for the management of behavior disorders of developmentally handicapped persons. However, very few studies describe the way reinforcement methods can be applied to the management problems of individuals with vision impairments. This article presents two studies in which positive reinforcement programs were utilized to treat the aggressive and noncompliant behavior of visually impaired, multiply handicapped students within special education classrooms. The reinforcement interventions were extremely effective with both groups of students and, in one case, produced substantial generalization to a non-treated problem behavior.

Effectiveness of the Prevention Program for Externalizing Problem Behavior (PEP) in Preschoolers with Severe and No or Mild ADHD Symptoms

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilka Eichelberger ◽  
Julia Plücka ◽  
Christopher Hautmann ◽  
Charlotte Hanisch ◽  
Manfred Döpfner
Keyword(s):  
Problem Behavior ◽  
Prevention Program ◽  
Adhd Symptoms ◽  
Aggressives Verhalten ◽  
Externalizing Problem Behavior ◽  
Externalizing Problem ◽  
Expansives Problemverhalten

Abstract. Zusammenfassung: Fragestellung: Das Präventionsprogramm für Expansives Problemverhalten (PEP), entwickelt für Eltern (EL) und ErzieherInnen (ER) von Vorschulkindern, zeigte in beiden Modulen (PEP-EL und PEP-ER) in der Routineversorgung positive Effekte. Das Ziel dieser Sekundäranalyse war die Untersuchung der Effekte beider Module bezogen auf Vorschulkinder mit hoch ausgeprägter ADHS-Symptomatik im Vergleich zu Kindern mit keiner oder wenig ausgeprägter ADHS-Symptomatik. Methodik: In einem Eigenkontrollgruppendesign werden die Veränderungen der Symptomatik und des Problemverhaltens der Kinder in spezifischen Situationen zu Hause und in der Schule in einer Wartephase mit den Veränderungen in einer Interventionsphase verglichen (jeweils 3 Monate). Ergebnisse: Durch das Elterntraining reduzieren sich für Kinder mit hoch ausgeprägter ADHS-Symptomatik die spezifischen Problemsituationen zu Hause (HSQ-D) und durch das ErzieherInnentraining zeigen sich signifikante Effekte für oppositionell-aggressives Verhalten und im Gesamtscore des Fragebogen für ErzieherInnen von Klein- und Vorschulkindern (C-TRF 1½-5). Kinder mit keiner oder weniger ausgeprägter ADHS-Symptomatik zeigen Veränderungen im HSQ-D, im oppositionell-aggressiven Verhalten und im Gesamtwert des Elternfragebogen für Klein- und Vorschulkinder (CBCL 1½-5), während sich für das ErzieherInnentraining in allen Zielvariablen signifikante Effekte zeigen. Schussfolgerungen: Die Befunde, dass sich Effekte auf unterschiedlichen Dimensionen von Problemverhalten zeigen, legen nahe, dass die Kombination beider Trainingsmodule eine potentielle präventive Strategie für Vorschulkinder mit ADHS darstellt.

Self-Injurious Behavior vs. Nonsuicidal Self-Injury

Crisis ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Bloom ◽  
Shareen Holly ◽  
Adam M. P. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Positive Reinforcement ◽  
Empirical Investigation ◽  
High Stress ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Stress Conditions ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Self Injury ◽  
Cns Stimulant ◽  
Nonsuicidal Self Injury

Background: Historically, the field of self-injury has distinguished between the behaviors exhibited among individuals with a developmental disability (self-injurious behaviors; SIB) and those present within a normative population (nonsuicidal self-injury; NSSI),which typically result as a response to perceived stress. More recently, however, conclusions about NSSI have been drawn from lines of animal research aimed at examining the neurobiological mechanisms of SIB. Despite some functional similarity between SIB and NSSI, no empirical investigation has provided precedent for the application of SIB-targeted animal research as justification for pharmacological interventions in populations demonstrating NSSI. Aims: The present study examined this question directly, by simulating an animal model of SIB in rodents injected with pemoline and systematically manipulating stress conditions in order to monitor rates of self-injury. Methods: Sham controls and experimental animals injected with pemoline (200 mg/kg) were assigned to either a low stress (discriminated positive reinforcement) or high stress (discriminated avoidance) group and compared on the dependent measures of self-inflicted injury prevalence and severity. Results: The manipulation of stress conditions did not impact the rate of self-injury demonstrated by the rats. The results do not support a model of stress-induced SIB in rodents. Conclusions: Current findings provide evidence for caution in the development of pharmacotherapies of NSSI in human populations based on CNS stimulant models. Theoretical implications are discussed with respect to antecedent factors such as preinjury arousal level and environmental stress.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document