instructional dvd
Post on 06-Apr-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
1/18
EFFECTIVENESS OF AN INSTRUCTIONAL DVD IN
TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENTS TO IMPLEMENT
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSESx
Maranda A. Trahan*,y and April S. Worsdellz
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL, USA
A functional analysis is a valuable assessment technique that requires a unique kind of precision on
behalf of the therapist. However, there is a lack of empirically validated tools for training functional
analysis skills. This study examined the effectiveness of an instructional DVD in training college
students to perform five functional analysis conditions. During simulated sessions, participants acted as
therapists, and observers measured the accuracy with which they implemented programmed antecedents
and consequences. Results showed that the DVD was effective in improving all participants accuracy
above baseline levels; however, in order to meet the 90% performance criterion, all participants required
feedback. These results suggest that an instructional video is a useful training tool in providing basic
skills for conducting functional analyses. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, researchers have evaluated a variety of methods for training
therapists to implement functional analyses (Iwata et al., 2000; Moore & Fisher, 2007;
Moore, Edwards, Sterling-Turner, Riley, DuBard, & McGeorge, 2002; Wallace,
Doney, Mintz-Resudek, & Tarbox, 2004). In the first study of its type, Iwata et al.
(2000) used a multi-component training program to successfully teach eleven college
students in the correct implementation of therapist behaviors during three functional
analysis conditions (attention, demand, and play). Training lasted approximately 2 h
and consisted of: (a) Reading and reviewing descriptions and outlines of each
functional analysis condition, (b) watching simulated videos of each condition, (c)
answering and reviewing quizzes, (d) rehearsal, and (e) post-session verbal and video
Behavioral Interventions
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bin.324
*Correspondence to: Maranda A. Trahan, Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology Division, Johns Hopkins University,5505 Hopkins Bayview Circle, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. E-mail: maranda.trahan@jhu.eduy
Present address: Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology Division, Johns Hopkins University, MD, USA.z Coyne & Associates Education Corporation, CA, USA.xThe paper is based on data also used in the first authors Masters Thesis.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011)
Published online 1 February 2011 in Wiley Online Library
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
2/18
performance feedback, and rehearsal. Similar findings have been obtained in other
studies that evaluated instructional packages for teaching people to conduct
functional analyses (Moore et al., 2002; Wallace et al., 2004).Although training packages have been effective in teaching functional analysis
skills, they may be less likely to be utilized due to the effort and time involved
in implementing multiple instructional components. One way to improve upon the
efficiency of functional analysis training is to use the minimum number of training
components needed to produce desired results, thereby reducing complexity and
overall training time. In terms of its efficiency and effectiveness, the use of video
represents an appealing methodology for skill acquisition training. Videos have been
demonstrated to be successful in improving a variety of socially significant behaviors,
such as social skills (Alberto, Cihak, & Gama, 2005; Morgan & Salzberg, 1992),consumer food purchases (Winett, Kramer, Walker, Malone, & Lane, 1988), energy
conservation (Winett et al., 1982), spoken and sign language (Watkins, Sprafkin,
& Krolikowski, 1990), and domestic skills (Goodson, Sigafoos, OReilly, Cannella,
& Lancioni, 2007). In addition, video ensures that an identical intervention is
being implemented with all persons undergoing training. This high degree of
standardization not only strengthens the conclusions drawn, but it also decreases the
likelihood of threats to internal validity.
Moore and Fisher (2007) compared the relative effectiveness of three training
techniques (lectures, partial video modeling, and complete video modeling) on staffacquisition of functional analysis skills. Participants performed the role of the
therapist during natural and simulated functional analyses in which either a real client
or an adult actor served as the client. Written materials, which included descriptions
and protocols for each of the three functional analysis conditions (attention, demand,
and play), were given to participants to read over during baseline phases. During
the training phases, the three functional analysis conditions were randomly assigned
to the three aforementioned training techniques. Lectures consisted of a presentation
on the rationale, history, procedures, and outcomes of a functional analysis. Both
types of the video modeling procedures used two adult actors to illustrate how toconduct a functional analysis. The only difference between the two video modeling
procedures was that partial video modeling exhibited 50% of possible therapist
behaviors, while complete video modeling demonstrated 100% of all probable
therapist behaviors. Training was completed when the participant achieved 80%
accuracy in the implementation of all three assessment conditions. Results showed
that all participants met the designated mastery criterion only when the complete
video modeling training technique was employed. Although the total training time
for each participant was not given, the authors did note that since each assessment
conditions video was 5 min in duration, a possible total training time could havebeen less than a half an hour. However, given that not every participant met the
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell86
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
3/18
mastery criterion for each functional analysis condition immediately after watching
the complete modeling video, it seems as though the above estimate is idealistic.
The purpose of the current study was to extend the findings obtained by Moore andFisher (2007) on the effectiveness of video as a tool for training functional analysis skills.
Rather than developing a simulated training video for the purposes of the study, the
efficacy of a commercially available instructional DVD was investigated. Furthermore,
unlike previous functional analysis training studies, participants were taught to implement
five assessment conditions (attention, tangible, demand, no interaction, and play).
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Two groups of college students participated in the study. The first group was comprised
of six female upper-level students (M age 25) who were completing undergraduate
degrees in a human service field. The second group of participants were four female
and two male graduate students enrolled in a masters degree program in behavior analysis
(M age 23.5). All participants were recruited via class visits, as well as from
departmental flyers placed in university mailboxes and posted in campus buildings.
The study was conducted at the beginning of the fall and spring semesters. To
ensure that the participants basic knowledge of conducting functional analyses
was minimal, all participants were pre-screened with a quiz prior to beginning
the study. The pre-screening quiz was adapted from a set of review questions that were
included in an instructional DVD entitled, Functional analysis: A guide for
understanding challenging behavior (Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2005).
It was comprised of 12 short-answer questions, and the questions pertained to the
correct implementation of antecedents and consequences during various functional
analysis conditions. If a student scored above 80% correct on the pre-screening quiz,
s/he was excluded from participation. All students who scored below 80% on the quiz
were included as participants in the study.
Participants served as therapists during all scripted functional analysis sessions,
and trained graduate students played the role of clients who exhibited challenging
behavior. All sessions were conducted in university classrooms equipped with the
materials needed to conduct individual simulated sessions.
Target Behaviors and Assessment Conditions
Data were collected on the therapists correct and incorrect implementation ofprescribed antecedents and consequences characteristic of five commonly conducted
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Instructional DVD 87
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
4/18
functional analysis conditions (attention, tangible, demand, no interaction, and play).
These specific assessment conditions were chosen because they were reviewed in
the instructional DVD entitled, Functional analysis: A guide for understandingchallenging behavior (Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2005). Each scripted
functional analysis condition was 5 min in length, and each series of conditions
was presented in the following fixed sequence: Attention, tangible, demand, no
interaction, and play. All sessions were videotaped for subsequent data collection.
During the attention condition, the client was given free access to toys for the
duration of the session. The therapist instructed the client to play while the therapist
worked. The therapists responses were scored as correct or incorrect for the
implementation of three components: (a) Initiating the session within 10 s after
the experimenter cued the therapist to begin (i.e., providing verbal instructions,walking away, and engaging in busy work); (b) delivering brief attention contingent
on each occurrence of the clients target behavior; and (c) not providing attention
following all other behaviors (appropriate or inappropriate).
During the tangible condition, preferred toys were removed from the client but
remained within the clients reach. The therapists responses were scored as correct
or incorrect for the implementation of the following components: (a) Initiating the
session within 10 s after the experimenter cued the therapist to begin (i.e., providing
verbal instructions, removing all materials, and moving away); (b) immediately
delivering the toys to the client contingent on each instance of the clients targetbehavior; (c) allowing approximately 30 s access to the toys; (d) removing the toys
after approximately 30 s of access; and (e) refraining from delivering the toys
following all other behaviors (appropriate or inappropriate).
During the demand condition, the therapist delivered continuous instructions to
the client using a three-step prompting sequence (i.e., VerbalModelPhysical
Guidance). Between each prompt, 5 s was allotted for compliance. If the client did
not comply within 5 s of the Verbal prompt, the therapist issued the Model prompt.
If the client did not comply within 5 s of the second prompt, the therapist issued the
Physical Guidance prompt. Brief verbal praise was delivered for compliance priorto the third prompt. Correct and incorrect therapist responses were scored for the
occurrence or nonoccurrence of several components: (a) Initiating the session within 10 s
after the experimenter cued the therapist to begin (i.e., providing verbal instructions); (b)
presenting and timing the instructions; (c) issuing prompts in the correct sequence; (d)
delivering praise contingent on compliance with the first or second prompt; (e) delivering
escape from the instructional task for approximately 30 s contingent on each occurrence
of the clients target behavior; and (f) continuing with the prompting sequence following
all other behaviors (appropriate or inappropriate).
During the no interaction condition, the client was in a room in which no toys orother materials were present. The therapist sat in the corner of the room and provided
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell88
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
5/18
no social interaction to the client. The therapists responses were scored as correct or
incorrect based on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the following: (a) Initiating the
session within 10 s after the experimenter cued the therapist to begin (i.e., movingaway); and (b) withholding attention for all behavior (appropriate or inappropriate,
including the clients target behavior).
Throughout the play condition, the client was given continuous access to toys, and
no demands were presented. The therapist provided neutral to positive verbal
statements at least every 30 s. If the client engaged in inappropriate behavior when
attention was to be delivered, the therapist withheld attention until the inappropriate
behavior stopped for at least 5 s. The therapists responses were scored as correct
or incorrect based on the implementation of the following behaviors: (a) Initiating
the session within 10 s after the experimenter cued the therapist to begin (i.e.,providing verbal instructions); (b) providing attention at least once every 30 s; (c)
withholding attention until inappropriate behavior ceased, if attention was scheduled
to be delivered; and (d) not providing attention for 5 s following all inappropriate
behaviors.
Session scripts were developed by the experimenter to simulate each functional
analysis condition. Three different scripts were created for each of the five assessment
conditions, totaling 15 scripts (see Table 1 for a sample session script). Each script
included one or more occurrences of the following client behaviors: (a) The target
behavior (i.e., leg slapping, defined as forcefully hitting the leg with an open or closedhand); (b) other inappropriate behavior (e.g., disruption, other forms of self-injurious
behavior); (c) appropriate behavior (e.g., manipulating toys, appropriate initiations);
and (d) compliance with instructions. Scripts always contained an equal number
of target behaviors, other inappropriate behaviors, and appropriate behaviors. A
minimum of 10 client behaviors was required per script, and each script differed in the
temporal distribution of the behaviors.
Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement
Data were collected by trained graduate students using a handheld computer
device equipped with the data collection program !Observe. The primary behavior
of interest was the therapists implementation of prescribed antecedents and
consequences for each functional analysis condition. Data were collected on the
frequency of correct and incorrect therapist responses in each condition and were
summarized as the percentage of correct implementation. For example, the therapists
correct responses to client target behaviors during the attention condition were scored
by dividing the number of correct responses by the number of implementation
opportunities and multiplying by 100%. A second observer later scored the therapistscorrect implementation of programmed antecedents and consequences during 32% of
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Instructional DVD 89
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
6/18
all undergraduates sessions, and during 30% of all graduate students sessions.
Interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated by dividing the number of agreements
(for the occurrence or nonoccurrence of therapist behavior) by the number of
agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%. In the case of the
undergraduate participants, mean agreement was 99.7% (range 87100%) forthe implementation of correct antecedents, 99.6% (range 87100%) for incorrect
antecedents, 99.0% (range 83100%) for correct consequences, and 2% (range
87100%) for incorrect consequences. Mean reliability coefficients for graduate
student participants were 98.7% (range 80100%) for the implementation of correct
antecedents, 99.0% (range 77100%) for incorrect antecedents, 96.7% (range
90100%) for correct consequences, and 98.6% (range 77100%) for incorrect
consequences. In addition to therapist behaviors, IOA data also were collected on
the scripted client behaviors to ensure procedural integrity. During the undergraduate
sessions, mean agreement score were 94.1% (range 80100%) for client targetbehaviors, 93.9% (range 77100%) for other challenging behaviors, and 97.2%
Table 1. Sample script of the attention condition.
Time (min:s) Scripted client behavior
Response class Topography
0:13 Self-injury Leg slap0:23 Disruption Slap floor0:37 Appropriate behavior Say, Please play with me0:42 Self-injury Leg slap0:56 Self-injury Leg slap1:11 Other self-injury Hand bite1:33 Other self-injury Hand bite1:38 Disruption Throw toy1:44 Self-injury Leg slap
1:49 Disruption Throws toy2:02 Self-injury Leg slap2:24 Self-injury Leg slap2:38 Self-injury Leg slap2:50 Appropriate behavior Play with toy appropriately2:55 Appropriate behavior Ask, Can you play with me now?3:07 Self-injury Leg slap3:33 Other self-injury Hand bite3:39 Disruption Slap floor3:55 Self-injury Leg slap4:14 Appropriate behavior Play with toy appropriately4:19 Disruption Slap floor
4:25 Self-injury Leg slap4:37 Self-injury Leg slap4:54 Self-injury Leg slap
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell90
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
7/18
(range 87100%) for appropriate behaviors. In the case of graduate student
sessions, mean IOA was 97.5% (range 73100%) for client target behaviors, 94.6%
(range 80100%) for other challenging behaviors, and 96.4% (range 87100%) forappropriate behaviors.
Experimental Design
A multiple baseline across subjects design was used to evaluate the effects of
the instructional DVD on correct implementation of functional analysis sessions.
Within each student group, half of the participants conducted five functional analysis
sessions during baseline (i.e., one exposure to each condition), whereas the other halfof the participants conducted 10 baseline sessions (i.e., two exposures). When a
participant began the study, s/he was semi-randomly assigned to either a 5- or
10-session baseline length. Following DVD training, all participants completed at
least two functional analysis series. Training was considered completed if a
participant met the performance criterion of 90% accuracy in the implementation of
all assessment conditions during the final series of five functional analysis sessions. If
a participant did not meet the mastery criterion after the first series of functional
analysis sessions, s/he immediately moved into the feedback phase. Thus, even if
a participant performed at or above 90% accuracy during the first series of functionalanalysis sessions, s/he was required to complete a second series at a similar accuracy
level prior to ending the study.
Baseline
One day before baseline data collection began, the participant met briefly with the
experimenter in a university classroom. The participant was given the methods
section of a published functional analysis study (Worsdell, Iwata, Hanley, Thompson,& Kahng, 2000) to take home and review. The participant was instructed to review the
written materials as many times as s/he wished, and to return to the classroom the
following day. The next day, baseline data collection was initiated, during which
the participant played the role of the therapist for each of the five simulated functional
analysis conditions. The participant was permitted to review the written materials
prior to each assessment session while the experimenter set up for the next session.
In addition, the participant was given the name of the assessment condition that
was about to be conducted, and s/he was informed of the designated client target
behavior. No other instructions or feedback from the experimenter were deliveredduring baseline.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Instructional DVD 91
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
8/18
Instructional DVD
Following baseline sessions, the participant was given the following instructional
DVD to take home and view: Functional analysis: A guide for understanding
challenging behavior (Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2005). The DVD
consisted of a 28-min video simulating five functional analysis conditionsattention,
tangible, demand, no interaction, and play. Unlike previously used simulated training
videos, during each condition, a narrator explained and outlined the correct therapist
behaviors to emit before and during each session. In addition, the DVD contained a video
sample of each condition, which demonstrated the therapists correct implementation of
programmed antecedents and consequences. Along with the DVD, the participant
received a DVD Highlights pamphlet. The pamphlet included brief outlines that
instructed the reader on the correct therapist behaviors to emit before and during each
functional analysis session, and a 20-question quiz. The participant was instructed to
watch the DVD and review the pamphlet at least once, although consent was given
to view the DVD multiple times and to take notes. In addition, the participant was given a
12-question quiz, which was identical to the pre-screening quiz, and was asked to answer
the quiz questions prior to returning to conduct sessions.
Because instructional DVDs are often purchased by customers and viewed in the
absence of additional verbal explanation by trainers, a check-out system was
utilized for DVD viewing.
Specifically, after a participant completed baseline, s/he checked out the DVD from
the experimenter for one night. As a result, the participant could watch the DVD at her/
his own pace (e.g., view the DVD more than once, pause the DVD to take notes). A
recording sheet also was given to the participant at the time of the check out. The
participant was asked to track the number of times the DVD was viewed and which
viewing format was used (e.g., watched entire DVD in one sitting, watched each
assessment condition in separate sittings, took the quiz while watching the DVD, etc.).
The following day, the participant returned to the university classroom and acted as
therapist for all five functional analysis conditions. Sessions were conducted similar
to baseline (e.g., no instructions or feedback delivered), except that the participant
was allowed to review the DVD pamphlet and any personally-written notes prior
to each session. If a participant met the 90% accuracy criterion across all five sessions,
s/he was asked to return the next day to complete a second functional analysis series.
If accuracy criterion was met after the second series, functional analysis skills were
considered mastered, and the participants involvement in the study ended.
Feedback
If a participant did not meet the 90% accuracy criterion after conducting the firstseries of five assessment conditions, s/he entered the feedback phase. During this
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell92
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
9/18
phase, the participant watched the DVD in a university classroom with the
experimenter present. While the DVD played, the experimenter reviewed and
discussed with the participant each condition in which mastery criterion was not met.The experimenter also reviewed the second quiz, answered any questions concerning
the DVD or the quiz, and role-played correct therapist responses as needed. The
feedback components were designed to last no longer than 90 min.
On the day after feedback was delivered, the participant completed another
functional analysis series using procedures identical to those used during the previous
phase. That is, no instructions or feedback were delivered during simulated sessions,
and the participant could review the DVD pamphlet and any notes prior to a session.
The feedback phase continued until the participant met the 90% mastery criterion
during a five-session functional analysis series.
RESULTS
Figure 1 shows the undergraduate students percentage of correct implementation
of therapist behaviors during simulated functional analysis sessions. Baseline
performances showed a great deal of variability both within and across participants
(M 48.3%; range 0100%). Dana, Bette, and Alice performed with the highest
overall accuracy during baseline, averaging 2, 54.8, and 54.8% correct implementa-tion, respectively. Tina and Shane correctly implemented 40 and 46.2% of the
prescribed antecedents and consequences, respectively. Jenny obtained the lowest
accuracy percentages during baseline, implementing 39% of the therapist behaviors
correctly.
In the case of individual condition performance, the no interaction condition
produced the highest levels of correct implementation for all of the undergraduates
(M 95.3%; range 93100%). During the attention and play conditions, the
undergraduates performed with moderate accuracy (Ms 66.3 and 59.3%,
respectively). Overall, the lowest levels of correct implementation were observedduring the tangible and demand conditions (Ms 17.6 and 3%, respectively). During
the tangible sessions for three participants (Bette, Tina, Shane) and the demand
sessions for three participants (Tina, Alica, Dana), no therapist behaviors were
performed correctly.
After watching the instructional DVD, all of the undergraduates improved their
accuracy in implementing correct therapist behaviors (M 76.7%; range 25100%).
One participant (Alice) met the mastery criterion for three of the five assessment
conditions, whereas the other five undergraduates achieved mastery criterion for two
of the five conditions. Because the 90% accuracy criterion was not achieved across allfive conditions for any of the undergraduates, all of them participated in the feedback
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Instructional DVD 93
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
10/18
Figure 1. Percentage of correct implementation for undergraduate students during baseline, instruc-tional DVD, and feedback phases.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell94
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
11/18
phase. Bette, Tina, and Jenny only required one session of feedback, after which they
met the mastery criterion. In contrast, Alice, Shane, and Dana needed two feedback
sessions in order to reach the mastery criterion and complete the study.Figure 2 displays the graduate students percentage of correct implementation of
antecedents and consequences during functional analysis sessions. Baseline accuracy
for the graduate students was higher than that observed for undergraduates, although
variability in correct implementation was observed across sessions and participants
(M 68.4%; range 0100%).
Collectively, the graduate students performed with the highest baseline accuracy
during attention and no interaction sessions (Ms 95.7 and 95.4%, respectively).
During play baseline sessions, correct implementation averaged 72.3%. Similar to the
undergraduates results, the lowest levels of accuracy occurred during demand andtangible sessions for the graduate students (Ms 47.1 and 31%, respectively). In fact,
three of the participants (Claude, Irene, and Reilly) failed to implement any
antecedent or consequences correctly during baseline tangible sessions.
Upon implementation of the instructional DVD, all of the graduate students
improved their accuracy in performing therapist behaviors for at least three of the five
assessment conditions (M 77.9%). Claude and Darlene performed with the highest
overall accuracy during the instructional DVD phase, averaging 89.4 and 86.8%
correct implementation, respectively.
Irene and Reilly exhibited modest increases in their ability to correctly implementfunctional analysis sessions (Ms 73.6 and 72.8%, respectively). In contrast, after
Myrna and Lana watched the instructional DVD, their mean percentage of correct
implementation decreased slightly from baseline levels (Ms 66 and 78.8%,
respectively). Specifically, both Myrnas and Lanas performance declined during the
play condition, and Myrnas accuracy in implementing the tangible condition
decreased to zero.
During the instructional DVD phase, none of the graduate students achieved the
designated mastery criterion of 90% correct implementation for all five functional
analysis conditions. Darlene, Lana, and Myrna met the mastery criterion for two ofthe five conditions, and for the remaining three graduate students (Claude, Irene, and
Reilly), mastery criterion was met for three of the five assessment conditions. As a
result, all of the graduate students were required to participate in the feedback phase.
After completing one session of feedback, three participants (Claude, Darlene, Lana)
achieved the mastery criterion, whereas two feedback sessions were needed for the
remaining three participants (Irene, Reilly, Myrna).
Figure 3 depicts the percentage change in undergraduates implementation of
therapist behaviors from the baseline phase to the instructional DVD phase. Relative
to baseline, improvements were observed in the implementation of antecedents acrossall five assessment conditions (M changes from baseline 67, 17, 58, 67, and 36%
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Instructional DVD 95
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
12/18
Figure 2. Percentage of correct implementation for graduate students during baseline, instructionalDVD, and feedback phases.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell96
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
13/18
during attention, tangible, demand, no interaction, and play conditions, respectively).
With respect to the implementation of consequences, accuracy improved during
the instructional DVD phase in all conditions but the no interaction condition
(Mchanges from baseline 28, 36, 56, 0, and 10% during attention, tangible, demand,
no interaction, and play conditions, respectively). In addition, when the overall
implementation of antecedents and consequences were combined into a summary score,
the total percentage change from baseline to instructional DVD also improved in allfive functional analysis conditions. The largest total improvements were observed
in the undergraduates implementation of demand sessions, whereas the lowest
total percentage change occurred during no interaction sessions (M changes from
baseline 52.4 and 3.7% during demand and no interaction conditions, respectively).
The graduate students percentage change in accuracy observed from the baseline
phase to the instructional DVD phase is displayed in Figure 4. In all five assessment
Figure 3. Percentage change of correct implementation from baseline to the instructional DVD phasefor undergraduate students.
Figure 4. Percentage change of correct implementation from baseline to the instructional DVD phasefor graduate students.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Instructional DVD 97
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
14/18
conditions, correct implementation of antecedents improved. These improvements in
antecedent accuracy were most notable in the attention and no interaction conditions
(M changes from baseline 100 and 83%, respectively). Improvements also wereobserved in the implementation of consequences during the tangible and demand
conditions (M changes from baseline 33 and 35%, respectively. No changes from
baseline were observed in the accuracy of consequence implementation during
attention and no interaction sessions, and a 15% decrease in accuracy occurred during
play sessions in the instructional DVD phase. In the case of total percentage changes
from baseline, graduate students accuracy increased, albeit by a small amount, in all
five assessment conditions (Mchanges from baseline 4.3, 9.2, 21.9, 4.6, and 7.0%
during attention, tangible, demand, no interaction, and play conditions, respectively).
DISCUSSION
Previous researchers have suggested that the procedures necessary to train
individuals in the functional analysis methodology are overly time consuming and
complex (Durand & Crimmins, 1988). The present study added to the existing
literature by evaluating the use of an instructional DVD in training college students
to implement functional analyses. Results showed that both undergraduate and
graduate students were able to correctly implement antecedents and consequencesin some sessions during baseline. After viewing the instructional DVD, all 12
participants improved their accuracy in implementing therapist behaviors during
three or more assessment conditions. However, feedback was needed in all cases to
achieve the designated mastery criterion of 90% accuracy across all five functional
analysis conditions. These findings suggest that with minimal training, individuals
can perform with the technical accuracy needed to correctly perform a functional
analysis.
The results of this study extended the functional analysis training literature in
several ways. First, the current findings further demonstrated that video modelingcould be a somewhat effective and efficient method to train participants in the
implementation of functional analysis procedures. Similar to Moore and Fisher
(2007), participants were taught to accurately perform functional analysis sessions in
less than 2 h. Moreover, the current training methodology is noteworthy in that the
instructional DVD may have minimized the use of trainer resources by reducing the
amount of face-to-face interaction with an expert (and often expensive) trainer. More
importantly, this is the first study to train subjects using a commercially available
DVD. Thus, it is readily available, widening its impact in the field.
In addition, participants were taught to perform a more comprehensive behavioralassessment that is more representative of functional analyses conducted in published
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell98
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
15/18
research (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Whereas previous studies trained
individuals to implement only two or three assessment conditions (Iwata et al., 2000;
Moore & Fisher, 2007; Moore et al., 2002; Wallace et al., 2004), the current studytargeted four test conditions (attention, tangible, demand, no interaction) and one
control condition (play). Thus, participants were trained to assess a variety of
potential sources of control that would be necessary to distinguish among social-
positive, social-negative, and automatic reinforcement functions.
On average, graduate student participants required 43 min (range 3060 min)
of feedback, which was half the amount of time undergraduates to be trained to
mastery (M 80 min; range 7090 min). Although an attempt was made to equate
the participants experience with functional analyses by conducting a pre-screening
quiz, it is likely that the graduate students had more knowledge of basic behavioranalytic principles, and more awareness of the functional analysis methodology.
Anecdotally, all six of the undergraduate students reported not knowing the purpose
of a functional analysis, or what it entailed, prior to their participation in the study. In
contrast, all of the graduate students anecdotally noted some familiarity with
functional analysis procedures, although none of them had previously conducted or
observed an assessment. The higher baseline accuracy obtained by the graduate
students suggested that their skill acquisition may have been facilitated by a history
of coursework in behavioral principles. Nevertheless, training times for the
undergraduates, who reported no prior behavior analytic knowledge, were not soinflated that they would discourage one from training such a population. Future
research should further evaluate the rate at which individuals with different skill sets
learn how to implement functional analyses.
Although all participants reached the mastery criterion across all five assessment
conditions, it was found that acquisition occurred more quickly (or more slowly)
during similar sessions for both groups of participants. That is, during baseline, both
the undergraduate and graduate students achieved over 95% accuracy when
implementing no interaction sessions. In contrast, both groups showed the lowest
percentages of correct therapist behaviors during demand and tangible sessions.These disparities in baseline accuracy suggest that the level of complexity may have
been different across functional analysis sessions. For example, during the no interaction
condition, the therapists antecedent behavior was scored as correct if s/he moved at least
0.9 m away from the client and did not issue any verbal statements. In contrast, more
intricate antecedent behaviors were required during the demand and tangible conditions.
Thus, the effort required by the therapist, and the amount of interaction with the client,
were unequal across conditions, and these differences in complexity may help explain
the variability observed in correct implementation during baseline.
It is important to note that the instructional DVD alone was not effective inimproving any participants scores to 90% accuracy across all five assessment
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Instructional DVD 99
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
16/18
conditions. That is, each undergraduate and graduate student needed feedback from
a trainer before achieving the mastery criterion. These results suggest that the
instructional DVD in isolation may not be successful in training functional analysisskills. However, as stated in the pamphlet that accompanied the DVD, it was
designed to be used by Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) or similarly
qualified professionals as part of a more comprehensive functional assessment course
or training program (Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2005). Future research
should investigate the effectiveness of the instructional DVD in training functional
analysis skills in a group workshop or classroom format. These results may also be
attributed to the check-out system utilized in this study. Observers did not directly
observe the participants viewing the DVD. Participants verbally reported watching
the DVD. It is possible the participants did not view the DVD in its entirety. However,participants reported watching the DVD at least once. Future research should explore
exposing the participant to the DVD for more than one viewing.
In the current study, functional analysis sessions were simulated and all client
behaviors were scripted. The decision was made not to conduct in situ sessions due to
the possible risks of harm to inexperienced participants or to the actual person
exhibiting challenging behaviors. As a result, the participants correct responses to
more unpredictable or dangerous behaviors were not assessed, and it is unknown the
extent to which their newly acquired skills would generalize to a more authentic
assessment situation with individuals referred for challenging behaviors. Interest-ingly, at the end of the study, participants anecdotally noted confusion related to
differences between the sessions portrayed in the DVD and the simulated sessions.
During the instructional DVD, the challenging behavior exhibited by the client (child
actor) was aggression in the form of hitting. In contrast, during simulated assessment
conditions, the client (adult experimenter) exhibited self-injurious behavior so that
participants would not be exposed to physical aggression. In addition, the physical
organization of the room and the manner in which actors in the instructional DVD
utilized the room differed from that of simulated sessions. For example, during
the DVD tangible session, the actors sat on the floor, and the therapist removed thematerials by sliding them to her side, out of the clients reach.
However, because space was limited during simulated sessions due to videotaping,
the therapist and client sat at a small table. As a result, when some participants
mirrored the actors technique of sliding the materials off to the side, they remained on
the table and within clients reach (i.e., an incorrect behavior). Although practical
constraints made it necessary to alter the simulated functional analyses, these
differences may have contributed to slower skill acquisition during the instructional
DVD phase. These findings were similar to those of Moore & Fisher (2007), in that
the number of exemplars depicted in the video modeling procedures was correlatedwith the degree of skill acquisition. When participants were shown the partial
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell100
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
17/18
modeling video, in which only 50% of the possible therapist behaviors were
demonstrated, no participant met the mastery criterion. However, after participants
watched the complete modeling video, during which 100% of probable therapistbehaviors were exhibited, all participants met the mastery criterion.
Another limitation of this study was that participants were not trained to mastery in
other functional analysis skill areas. Therefore, it is unlikely that the decision-making
skills needed to accurately interpret functional analysis data or to design function-
based interventions were acquired by participants. The current study attempted to
improve the correct implementation of programmed antecedents and consequences
during functional analyses sessions, rather than teach behaviors that involved some
degree of clinical judgment. However, at least one study has shown that it is possible
to teach individuals to use structured criteria in the visual inspection of functionalanalysis data (Hagopian, Fisher, Thompson, Owen-DeSchryver, Iwata, & Wacker,
1997). Additional research is needed to develop and evaluate methods for teaching
more complex functional analysis skills.
In sum, the present findings demonstrated that an instructional DVD, combined with
experimenter feedback, was successful in training college students to conduct functional
analyses. Given the effectiveness and efficiency of this training approach, researchers
should further explore the utility of video modeling in teaching other complex skill sets.
In addition, it may be possible to use video not only during initial instruction, but also
when delivering feedback. For example, a trainees performance of certain skills couldbe videotaped, and then the video could be viewed (and/or scored) by the person in an
attempt to occasion more precise discriminations between correct and incorrect
behaviors. By improving the cost-effectiveness of skills training programs, organizations
may be more inclined to maintain rigorous training regimens for their staff.
REFERENCES
Alberto, P., Cihak, D., & Gama, R. (2005). Use of static picture prompts versus video modeling duringsimulation instruction. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 327339.
Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders (Producer). (2005). Functional analysis: A guide for under-
standing challenging behavior [DVD] (Available from the Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders,
Mailcode 6607, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 6290).
Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variable maintaining self-injurious behavior.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99117.
Goodson, J., Sigafoos, J., OReilly, M., Cannella, H., & Lancioni, G. E. (2007). Evaluation of a video-
based error correction procedure for teaching a domestic skill to individuals with developmental
disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28, 458467.
Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., Owen-DeSchryver, J., Iwata, B. A., & Wacker, D. P.
(1997). Toward the development of structured criteria for interpretation of functional analysis data.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 313326.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Instructional DVD 101
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
-
8/2/2019 Instructional DVD
18/18
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147185.
Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S., Lindberg, J. S., Roscoe, E. M., & Conners, J., et al. (2000). Skill
acquisition in the implementation of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 33, 181194.
Moore, J. W., Edwards, R. P., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Riley, J., DuBard, M., & McGeorge, A. (2002).
Teacher acquisition of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35,
7377.
Moore, J. W., & Fisher, W. W. (2007). The effects of videotape modeling on staff acquisition of
functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 197202.
Morgan, R. L., & Salzberg, C. L. (1992). Effects of video-assisted training on employment-related social
skills of adults with severe mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 365383.
Wallace, M. D., Doney, J. K., Mintz-Resudek, C. M., & Tarbox, R. S. F. (2004). Training educators to
implement functional analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 8992.Watkins, L. T., Sprafkin, J. N., & Krolikowski, D. M. (1990). Effects of video based training on spoken
and signed language acquisition by students with mental retardation. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 11, 273288.
Winett, R. A., Hatcher, J. W., Fort, T. R., Leckliter, I. N., Love, S. Q., & Riley, A. W., et al. (1982). The
effects of videotape modeling and daily feedback on residential electricity conservation, home
temperature and humidity, perceived comfort, and clothing worn: Winter and summer. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 381402.
Winett, R. A., Kramer, K. D., Walker, W. B., Malone, S. W., & Lane, M. K. (1988). Modifying food
purchases in supermarkets with modeling, feedback, and goal-setting procedures. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 21, 7380.
Worsdell, A. S., Iwata, B. A., Hanley, G. P., Thompson, R. H., & Kahng, S. W. (2000). Effects ofcontinuous and intermittent reinforcement for problem behavior during functional communication
training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 167179.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell102
Behav. Intervent. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
26: 85102
top related