Positive Approaches for Decreasing Problem Behavior

Stephen Walker, Professor Northern Kentucky University

Diane Sketch, District Behavior InterventionistCovington Independent Public Schools

Kentucky Exceptional Children’s Annual ConferenceTuesday, November 24, 2015

Positive Approaches for Decreasing Problem Behavior

This session has three parts:

1.A rationale for using positive approaches for behavior management.2.An overview of three strategies and how to use them including – DRL, DRO, and DRI3.An application activity that will ask you to work together in small groups to apply these ideas to a classroom situation.

This session addresses the Kentucky Department of Education’s priorities and goals of using evidence based practices. Specifically it will focus on instructional strategies, interventions, or teaching programs that have positive results when implemented consistently.

The Rationale for a Positive Alternative to Punishment:

• Students with learning and behavior problems typically experience academic frustration and often chronic failure.

• Problem behaviors may emerge to gain attention and/or, even more likely, to escape or avoid assignments that the student perceives she/he is unable to successfully complete.

• These problem behaviors eventually become habits that serve a function and typically continue to be reinforced with SR+ and SR-.

Potential Solutions for Aberrant Behavior in the Classroom:

• Punishment – but, if it has been used 4 or 5 times and hasn’t worked, then move on to another strategy! • Ignore the behavior – probably won’t work by itself, and if the teacher eventually responds the behavior it will be even stronger and more difficult to modify (the power of intermittent reinforcement). • Find a positive and proactive solution that teaches a replacement behavior!

…but first some assumptions:

• Most behavior is learned

A B C • Explanatory fictions and circular reasoning are not usually very productive.

• Blaming the child (often the victim) is a waste time and energy.

Positive and Proactive Solutions:

• Differential Reinforcement – an example of how this works…

An example:

Melvin is an 10 year old student with a learning disability. He was regarded by his teachers as the most ‑ ‑disruptive student in his class. He exhibited high stable rates of verbal interruptions and other disturbing noises during class. “Verbal interruptions” was given the following definition: "talking to the teacher or classmates without the teacher's permission; including talking, singing, or humming to himself; making statements not related to the ongoing class discussion, or making animal and farting noises. Non-examples include: participating in brainstorming sessions, shouting out in P.E. class during a game or activity, or notifying the teacher of something that is potentially dangerous." The special education teacher recorded Melvin's verbal interruptions during one 50 minute session per day. ‑During baseline, the behavior was recorded for five 50-minute sessions. It was found that Melvin averaged about 17 verbal interruptions per session or about one interruption every 3 minutes - or 0.33 per minute. During the intervention, Melvin was told the definition of a verbal interruptions and he agreed to a contingency that he would receive 10 minutes of free time at the end of the day if at the end of the 50 minute session he had ‑made nine or fewer talk outs‑ (i.e., about one every 5 ½ minutes). During the first phase of the intervention, which lasted 10 sessions, Melvin averaged about one talk-out every 10 minutes (0.10 per minute ) Most importantly he never exceeded the upper limit of nine per session. Later the number was reduced to 5 and eventually to 3 (one approximately every 17 minutes or 0.059 per minute). In the final phase of the program, the contingency was removed and Melvin was told that he would no longer receive free time for low rates of verbal interruptions. Over the next ten days his rate increased to an average of one every 15 minutes (0.06 per minute). Although this rate was slightly higher that the rate during the intervention phase, it was still a lot lower than the rate before intervention.

Adapted from: Martin, G. & Pear, J. (2003). Behavior Modification: What It Is and How to Do It (7th edition).

Positive and Proactive Solutions:

• Differential Reinforcement Strategies

- Differential Reinforcement for Lower Rates of Behavior (DRL)

- Differential Reinforcement for Other (Zero Rates) Behavior (DRO)

- Differential Reinforcement for Incompatible Behavior (DRI)

Differential Reinforcement for Lower Rates of Behavior (DRL) • If reinforcement only occurs when the target behavior is occurring at a lower rate, the target behavior will subsequently tend to occur at a lower rate.

• DRL is appropriate when some of the target behavior is tolerable (the target behavior does not need to be entirely eliminated, e.g., contributing to a class discussion is desirable, dominating a class discussion is not… or, doing math problems quickly is desirable, doing them so fast that careless errors result in low accuracy is not…

Examples of Behaviors that Respond to DRL: • Calling out• Burping out loud• Asking too many questions• Making self deprecating remarks• Cursing• Out of seat behavior• Most anything that is annoying at a high rate but would be more tolerable and socially acceptable at a lower level.

Next: Setting Criterion Levels for DRL:

Setting Criterion Levels for DRL: • During baseline record the number of target behaviors per session for 3-5 sessions to obtain the initial value for the DRL schedule (based on the average)

• Gradually decrease the value in a way so that reinforcement occurs frequently enough throughout the procedure to ensure adequate progress (use your clinical judgment).

e.g., profanity b/w 9-11 AM on Mon. = 12Tue. = 17Wed. = 21Thur. = 11Fri. = 15

TOTAL = 76 76/5 = 15.2 or 15First Criterion Level = < 15

Advantages & Disadvantages of DRL

• Advantages:– Can reduce behavior without using punishment– Matches the use of shaping as well as the changing

criterion single subject design– Teaches self control• Disadvantages:– Ratio strain may occur if the criteria is changed too quickly– Changes in behavior occur slowly– Should not be used with violent or dangerous behaviors

Differential Reinforcement for Other Behaviors (Zero Rates)• DRO is a technique that reinforces for the complete absence of the behavior over longer and longer periods of time.

• Using DRO, only zero rates of the behavior are allowed. Initially short periods of time are used and then lengthened. Perfect for behaviors where there is no reasonable acceptable limit - such as hitting other children or SIB.

Examples of Behaviors that Respond to DRO: • Hitting others• Spitting on others• Self Injurious Behavior (SIB)• Most any behavior that cannot be tolerated at any level other than zero.

Next: Setting Criterion Levels for DRO:

Setting Criterion Levels for DRO: • During baseline record the number of target behaviors per session for 3-5 sessions and then compute inter-response time (IRT).

e.g., During a 50 minute class period the following number of target behaviors occurred: Monday = 10Tuesday = 13Wednesday = 8Thursday = 11Friday = 8TOTAL = 50 50/5 days = Average of 10 per 50 minute session (50/10 = 5 minutes) or on average one behavior every 5 minutes (the IRT = 5 min.) The first Criterion Level = 5 minutes without the target behavior occurring to earn a SR+. Then increase the criterion level as the student reaches mastery at each level (e.g., 3 days in a row).

Advantages & Disadvantages of DRO

• Advantages:– Teachers usually find DRO fairly easy to use in the classroom– The teacher directly addresses the aberrant behavior by reinforcing

it’s complete absence.

• Disadvantages:– DRO does not teach a replacement behavior (behavioral covariation

a.k.a. symptom substitution may occur)– There is always a risk of inadvertently reinforcing a different

undesirable behavior that may have occurred during the IRT

Differential Reinforcement for Incompatible Behaviors (DRI) • An Incompatible response means a response that cannot be emitted at the same time as the target response. It is topographically incompatible. It is also synonymous with the notion of "Fair Pair".

• The technique simply involves selecting a behavior to reinforce that cannot coexist with the behavior targeted for reduction. It automatically introduces a functional alternative behavior to the target behavior.

Next: The Principle of the Fair Pair and the Dead Man Test

The Principle of the Fair PairOne of the beneficial things about using differential reinforcement techniques to reduce behavior is that it tends to avoid symptom substitution (a Freudian term) or behavioral covariation (a behavioral term) because these strategies naturally tend to reinforce a more appropriate alternative behavior. A problem with an intervention may occur when a student who hits others is punished every time he strikes another student. Using punishment, hitting may in fact decrease. However, one of three things will most likely happen unless he is taught how to handle conflict in a more appropriate manner: 1.) he may resume hitting because he does not know what else to do; 2.) he may resort to less physical ways of managing conflict such as threats or name calling; and/or 3.) he may try to hit without getting caught. So, we should consider the Principle of the Fair Pair - which is the notion that it is fair to weaken a child's maladaptive behavior ONLY if an adaptive replacement behavior is strengthened in its place. The Fair Pair concept can be thought of as a need to replace one behavior with another when designing a reductive technique. This is consistent with what we know about the function of behavior (to get something or get out of something or SR+ and SR-). Even an inappropriate behavior serves a function for the individual, so treatment should seek to replace the aberrant behavior with a one that serves the same or a similar function. This ensures more lasting change. When selecting an alternative behavior to increase in place of a behavior targeted for reduction, another consideration is The Dead Man Test. The Dead Man Test asks - could a dead man do the target behavior eg. refrain from swearing at peers. Of course, the answer is YES, a dead man could refrain from swearing - so it is not a Fair Pair behavior. Therefore we need another behavior to strengthen - such as speaking courteously to others. Similarly, a dead man could sit quietly in his seat… but could not complete an assignment. In other words, if a dead man could do it – it is not necessarily a good replacement behavior!

Examples of Behaviors that Respond to DRI: • Out of Seat Behavior• Off-task behavior• Thumb sucking• Arriving late for class• Truancy• Most any behavior that has a naturally available structurally incompatible or mutually exclusive alternative behavior.

Next: Setting Criterion Levels for DRI:

Setting Criterion Levels for DRI: • Take data on the frequency or duration of the incompatible behavior• Select a schedule of reinforcement based on the data (usually an average)• Reinforce the incompatible behavior and increase the schedule of reinforcement in a manner that it continues to replace the inappropriate behavior

e.g., The target behavior for reduction is being “out of seat”, so the incompatible behavior is being “in seat and at task”. BIP is initiated during a 50 minute resource class.Monday = 7 minutes of in seat/at task behavior Tuesday = 5 min.Wednesday = 8 min.Thursday = 6 min.Friday = 9 min.TOTAL = 35 minutes / 5 days = 7 minute average

First Criterion Level is < 7 minutes in seat/at task to earn SR+. Then gradually increase the in-seat/at task time required to earn the reinforcer. Set terminal criteria based on data derived from the class average.

Advantages & Disadvantages of DRI

• Advantages:– Usually teaches a replacement behavior that may serve the same

function– Addresses the “Fair Pair” goal of teaching, learning, and behavior

change

• Disadvantages:– There isn’t always a mutually exclusive or structurally incompatible

behavior to use in a DRI program. – The increase in the appropriate alternative behavior may not

necessarily serve the same function for the student.

Lets Try It! Ms. Paige Turner, Oscar’s teacher, is concerned because during group activities Oscar dominates the discussion and does not permit other students to participate. The teacher wants to use a behavior reduction procedure that will reduce, but not necessarily completely eliminate, these frequent talk-outs. Punishment has been attempted and unfortunately resulted in more, not less of this annoying and disruptive behavior.

What positive behavior reduction technique could be used in this situation? How could it be applied to Oscar’s behavior? Note any problems which might come up with the program that you select. Be specific as you can in describing how you will implement the program you select.

Question or Comments?

Thank you for attending this session!

Have a safe trip home and a Happy Thanksgiving!