Advertisement

Developmental Disabilities

Scientific Inquiry and Interactions in Behavior Analysis
  • Nancy A. Neef
  • Stephanie M. Peterson

Abstract

Behavior analysis has had a pervasive influence on the field of developmental disabilities. This is evident from the proliferation of behaviorally based interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities; from course content and textbooks on behavior approaches included in the curricula of training programs in special education; from the number of advertisements for positions in developmental disabilities in which skill in behavior analysis is a qualification; from the results of litigation mandating provision of services based on behaviorally based practices; and from policy, regulatory standards, and legislation regarding use of behaviorally based assessment and treatment in various situations (e.g., Reid, 1991). That is surely good news. On the other hand, there have been, and continue to be, notable failures and sources of dissatisfaction. We conclude that this is also good news because these failures force the field to continue to improve. This chapter will argue that continued interaction among basic science/theory, applied research, technology, and applied practice will provide the best source of improvement. In order to make this point, this chapter will (a) illustrate different types of interactions between basic science/theory, applied research, technology, and applied practice; (b) examine them in the context of developments in behavioral analysis and developmental disabilities; and (c) consider what they suggest for further advances.

Keywords

Problem Behavior Applied Research Sleep Deprivation Developmental Disability Behavior Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Azrin, N. H. (1977). A strategy for applied research.: Learning based but outcome oriented. American Psychologist, 32, 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, A., & Perone, M. (1982). The place of human subject in the operant laboratory. The Behavior Analyst, 5, 143–158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Belke, T. W. (2000). Studies of wheel-running reinforcement: Parameters of Herrnstein’s (1970) response-strength equation vary with schedule order. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 73, 319–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg, W. K., Peck, S., Wacker, D. P., Harding, J., McComas, J., Richman, D., & Brown, K. (2000). The effects of presession exposure to attention on the results of assessments of attention as a reinforcer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 463–477.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binder, L. M., Dixon, M. R., & Ghezzi, P. M. (2000). A procedure to teach self-control to children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 233–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardwell, D. S. L. (1994). The Norton history of technology. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 800–816.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carr, E. G., Yarbrough, S. C., & Langdon, N. A. (1997). Effects of idiosyncratic stimulus variables on functional analysis outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 673–686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandler, L. K., & Dahlquist, C. M. (2002). Functional assessment: Strategies to prevent and remediate challenging behavior in school settings. Columbus: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, L. J., Wacker, D. Brown, K., McComas, J. J., Peck, S. M., Drew, J., Asmus, J., & Kayser, K. (1999). Use of a concurrent operants paradigm to evaluate reinforcers during treatment of food refusal. Behavior Modification, 23, 3–40.Google Scholar
  13. Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum..Google Scholar
  14. Day, H. M., Homer, R. H., & O’Neill, R. E. (1994). Multiple functions of problem behaviors:Assessment and intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 279–289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Derby, K. M., Hagopian, L., Fisher, W. W., Richman, D., Augustine, M., Fahs, A., & Thompson,R. (2000). Functional analysis of aberrant behavior through measurement of separate response topographies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 113–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Peck, S., Sasso, G., DeRaad, A., Berg, W., Asmus, J., & Ulrich,S. (1994). Functional analysis of separate topographies of aberrant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 267–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deitz, S. M. (1978). Current status of applied behavior analysis: Science versus technology. American Psychologist, 33, 805–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dixon, M. R., Benedict, H., & Larson, T. (2001). Functional analysis and treatment of inappropriate verbal behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 361–363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Epling, W., F., & Pierce, W. D. (1983). Applied behavior analysis: New directions from the laboratory. The Behavior Analyst, 6, 27–37.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, S. M., Iwata, B. A., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1997). Noncontingent delivery of arbitrary reinforcers as treatment for self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher, W. W., & Mazur, J. E. (1997). Basic and applied research on choice responding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 387–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fisher, W. W., Ninness, H. A. C., Piazza, C. C., & Owen-DeSchryver, J. S. (1996). On the reinforcing effects of the content of verbal attention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 235–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fisher, W. W, Piazza, C. C., & Chiang, C. L. (1996). Effects of equal and unequal reinforce duration during functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 117–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heery,J.(1886).Scientific Writings of Joseph Henry.Washington:Smiths Institution.Google Scholar
  25. Henry, J. (1886). Scientific writings of Joseph Henry. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267–272.Google Scholar
  26. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iwata, B. A. (1988). The development and adoption of controversial default technologies. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 149–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209. (Reprinted from Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2,3–20,1982).Google Scholar
  29. Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Dorsey, M. F., Zarcone, J. R., Vollmer, T. R., Smith, R. G., Rodgers, T. A., Lerman, D. C., Shore, B. A., Mazaleski, J. L., Goh, H. L., Cowdery, G. E., Kalsher, M. J., McCosh, K. C., & Willis, K. D. (1994). The functions of self-injurious behavior: An experimental-epidemiological analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 215–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S., Lindberg, J. S., Roscoe, E. M., Conners, J., Hanley, G. P., Thompson, R. H., & Worsdell, A. S. (2000). Skill acquisition in the implementation of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 181–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacobs, E. A., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2000). Human performance on negative slope schedules of points exchangeable for money: A failure of molar maximization. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 73, 241–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnston, J. M. (1991). We need a new model of technology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 425–427.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnston, J. M. (1993). A model for developing and evaluating behavioral technology. In R. Van Houten & S. Axelrod (Eds.), Effective behavioral treatment: Issues and implementation (pp. 323–343 ). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  34. Johnston, J. M. (1996). Distinguishing between applied research and practice. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 35–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnston, J. M. (2000). Behavior analysis and the R & D paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 141–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kennedy, C. H., & Itkonen, T. (1993). Effects of setting events on the problem behavior of students with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 321–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kennedy, C. H., & Meyer, K. A. (1996). Sleep deprivation, allergy symptoms, and negatively reinforced problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 133–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kennedy, C. H., Meyer, K. A., Werts, M. G., & Cushing, L. S. (2000). Effects of sleep deprivation on free-operant avoidance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 73, 333–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lalli, J. S., & Kates, K. (1998). The effect of reinforcer preference on functional analysis out-comes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lattal, K. A. (2001). The human side of animal behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 24, 147–161.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lattal, K. A., & Neef, N. A. (1996). Recent reinforcement-schedule research and applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mace, F. C. (1991). Technological to a fault or faulty approach to technology development? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 433–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mace, F. C. (1994). Basic research needed for stimulating the development of behavioral technologies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 529–550.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mace, F. C., & Knight, D. (1986). Functional analysis and treatment of severe pica. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 411–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mace, F. C., & Lalli, J. S. (1991). Linking descriptive and experimental analysis in the treatment of bizarre speech. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 553–562.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mace, F. C., McCurdy, B., & Quigley, E. A. (1990). A collateral effect of reward predicted by matching theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 197–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mace, F. C., Neef, N. A., Shade, D., & Mauro, B. C. (1994). Limited matching on concurrent-schedule reinforcement of academic behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 585–596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Martens, B. K., Halperin, S., Pummel, J. E., & Kilpatrick, D. (1990). Matching theory applied to contingent teacher attention. Behavioral Assessment, 12, 139–156.Google Scholar
  49. Martens, B. K., & Houk, J. L. (1989). The application of Herrnstein’s law of effect to disruptive and on-task behavior of a retarded adolescent girl. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martens, B. K., Lochner, D. G., & Kelly, S. Q. (1992). The effects of variable-interval reinforcement on academic engagement: A demonstration of matching theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25143–151.Google Scholar
  51. McDowell, J. J. (1988). Matching theory in natural human environments. The Behavior Analyst 11, 95109. Google Scholar
  52. Michael, J. (1980). Flight from behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 3, 1–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Morris, E. K. (1991). Deconstructing “technological to a fault.” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 411–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moxley, R. A. (1989). Some historical relationships between science and technology with implications for behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 12, 45–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Mueller, M. M., Wilczynski, S. M., Moore, J. W., Fusilier, I., & Trahant, D. (2001). Antecedent manipulations in a tangible condition: The effects of stimulus preference on aggression. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 237–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (1984). Practical implications of the matching law.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 17, 367380. Google Scholar
  57. National Institutes of Health. (1991).Treatment of destructive behaviors in persons with developmental disabilities.Google Scholar
  58. Neef, N. A. (1995). Research on training trainers in program implementation: An introduction and future directions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 297–299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Neef, N. A. (2002). The past and future of behavior analysis in developmental disabilities: When good news is bad and bad news is good. Behavior Analyst Today.Google Scholar
  60. Neef, N. A., Mace, E. C., & Shade, D. (1993). Impulsivity in students with serious emotional disturbance: the interactive effects of reinforcer rate, delay, and quality. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26,37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Neef, N. A., Mace, E. C., Shea, M. C., & Shade, D. (1992). Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extensions of matching theory to educational settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 691–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Neef, N. A., & Lutz, M. N. (2001). Assessment of variables affecting choice and application to classroom interventions. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 239–252.Google Scholar
  63. Neef, N. A., Shade, D., & Miller, M. S. (1994). Assessing influential dimensions of reinforcers on choice in students with serious emotional disturbance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 575–583.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Cigrand, K., Cook, J., & DeRaad, A. (1991). A brief functional analysis of aggressive and alternative behavior in an outdinic setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 509–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. O’Reilly, M. F. (1995). Functional analysis and treatment of escape-maintained aggression correlated with sleep deprivation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 225–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. O’Reilly, M. F., & Carey, Y. (1996). A preliminary analysis of the effects of prior classroom conditions on performance under analogue analysis conditions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 581–584.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Peck, S. M., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Cooper, L. J., Brown, K. A., Richman, D., McComas, J. J., Frischmeyer, P., & Millard, T. (1996). Choice-making treatment of young children’s severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 263–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pelios, L., Morren, J., Tesch, D., & Axelrod, S. (1999). The impact of functional analysis methodology on treatment choice for self-injurious and aggressive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 185–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pennypacker, H. S. (1986). The challenge of technology transfer: Buying in without selling out. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 147–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Pennypacker, H. S., & Hench, L. L. (1997). Making behavioral technology transferable. The Behavior Analyst, 20, 97–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Perone, M. (1985). On the impact of human operant research: Asymmetrical patterns of cross-citation between human and nonhuman research. The Behavior Analyst, 8, 185–189.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Petroski, H. (1992). The evolution of useful things. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  73. Piazza, C. C., Hanley, G. P., Bowman, L. G., Ruyter, J. M., Lindauer, S. E., & Saiontz, D. M. (1997). Functional analysis and treatment of elopement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 653–672.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Piazza, C. C., Hanley, G. P., & Fisher, W. W. (1996). Functional analysis and treatment of cigarette pica. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 437–449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pierce, W. D., & Epling, W. F. (1995). The applied importance of research on the matching law. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 237–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pindiprolu, S. S., Peterson, S. M. P., Rule, S., & Lignuaris /Kraft, B. (2003). Using Web-Mediated Experiential Case-Based Instruction to Teach Functional Behavioral Assessment Skills. Teacher Education in Special Education, 26, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Poling, A., Ailing, K., & Fuqua, R. W. (1994). Self-and cross-citations in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis and the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior: 1983–1992. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 729–731.Google Scholar
  78. Reid, D. H. (1991). Technological behavior analysis and societal impact: A human services perspective. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 437–439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Repp, A. C., Felce, D., & Barton, L. E. (1988). Basing the treatment of stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors on hypotheses of their causes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 281–289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Repp, A. C., & Karsh, K. G. (1994). Hypothesis-based interventions for tantrum behaviors of persons with developmental disabilities in school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 21–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schwartz, I. S., & Baer, D. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 189204.Google Scholar
  82. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  83. Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  84. Skinner, B. F. (1972). Cumulative record: A selection of papers. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.Google Scholar
  85. Stolz, S. B. (1981). Adoption of innovations from applied behavioral research: “Does anybody care?” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 491–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Strand, P. S. (2001). Momentum, matching, and meaning: Toward a fuller exploitation of operant principles. Behavior Analyst Today, 2, 170–175.Google Scholar
  87. Van Camp, C. M., Lerman, D. C., Kelley, M. E., Roane, H. S., Contrucci, S. A., & Vorndran, C. M. (2000). Further analysis of idiosyncratic antecedent influences during the assessment and treatment of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 207–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., Roane, H. S., & Marcus, B. A. (1997). Negative side effects of noncontingent reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 161–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy A. Neef
    • 1
  • Stephanie M. Peterson
    • 1
  1. 1.College of EducationThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations