the influence of motivating operations on … · the influence of motivating operations on...

THE INFLUENCE OF MOTIVATING OPERATIONS ONGENERALIZATION PROBES OF SPECIFIC MANDS BY CHILDREN

WITH AUTISM

CHRISTINA L. FRAGALE, MARK F. O’REILLY, JEANNIE AGUILAR, AND NIGEL PIERCE

THE MEADOWS CENTER FOR PREVENTING EDUCATIONAL RISK

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

RUSSELL LANG

TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY AT SAN MARCOS

JEFF SIGAFOOS

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON

AND

GIULIO LANCIONI

UNIVERSITY OF BARI

We investigated the influence of motivating operations on the generalization of newly taughtmands across settings and communication partners for 3 children with autism. Two conditionswere implemented prior to generalization probes. In the first condition, participants were givenaccess to a preferred item until they rejected the item (i.e., abolishing operation). In the secondcondition, the item was not available to participants prior to generalization probes (i.e.,establishing operation). The effects of these conditions on the generalization of newly taughtmands were evaluated in a multielement design. Results indicated differentiated respondingduring generalization probes in which more manding with the target mand was observedfollowing the presession no-access condition than in the presession access condition. Theseresults support the consideration of motivating operations when assessing generalization of targetmands to various untrained contexts.

Key words: mands, motivating operations, generalization, autism

Individuals with autism and other develop-

mental disabilities often exhibit difficulties in

acquiring language skills and the ability to

communicate effectively or appropriately (Na-

tional Research Council, 2001). One skill

frequently targeted in language programs is

manding or teaching an individual to request

access to reinforcement (Sundberg & Michael,

2001). Giving an individual more control over

the delivery of reinforcers may increase the

likelihood that the person will attempt to

communicate in the future (Shafer, 1994;Sundberg & Michael, 2001).

Manding is inherently linked to motivatingoperations. Skinner (1957) implicated thepresence of motivative variables (most com-monly deprivation or aversive stimulation) ascontrolling variables for the mand. Motivatingoperations (MOs; also known as establishingoperations in earlier literature) are changes inthe environment that momentarily alter thereinforcing value of an object or event. MOsalso affect the frequency of behaviors previouslyassociated with that reinforcer (Michael, 1982).MOs that increase the value of reinforcers andfrequency of behaviors are called establishingoperations (EOs), and MOs that decrease thevalue of reinforcers and frequency of behaviors

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Christina L. Fragale, Department ofSpecial Education, University of Texas at Austin, 1University Station D5300, Austin, Texas 78712 (e-mail: [email protected]).

doi: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-565

565

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS NUMBER 3 (FALL 2012)2012, 45, 565–577

are called abolishing operations (AOs; Laraway,Snycerski, Michael, & Poling, 2003). Theclinical impact of MOs in the assessment andtreatment of individuals with developmentaldisabilities has been demonstrated throughrecent research on functional analysis assess-ment results (Langthorne, McGill, & O’Reilly,2007; O’Reilly et al., 2008; Roantree &Kennedy, 2006), choice and preference (Chap-pell, Graff, Libby, & Ahearn, 2009; Reed, Pace,& Luiselli, 2009), academic behaviors (Rispoliet al., 2011), and treatment of problembehaviors (Lang et al., 2010; McComas, Hoch,Paone, & El-Roy, 2000; O’Reilly et al., 2007).

The effects of manipulating MOs also havebeen illustrated in the context of teachingmands to children with developmental disabil-ities, although the effects on generalization ofmands have not been investigated fully. In mostcases, generalization, or the use of learned skillsin untrained contexts or over time, usuallyindicates true improvement (Baer, Wolf, &Risley, 1968). However, generalization withoutexplicit training appears to be particularlyproblematic for individuals with autism (Na-tional Research Council, 2001; Scott, Clark, &Brady, 2000). Specifically, these individualsmay acquire mands but then fail to use themoutside the trained settings or when the cuesrelated to the teaching condition are no longerpresent (Scott et al., 2000; Taylor & Harris,1995). In some studies on mands, generaliza-tion effects were not reported or were notmeasured sufficiently.

Sundberg, Loeb, Hale, and Eigenheer(2002), for example, taught two children withautism to acquire mands in the form ofquestion asking. Results indicated a relationbetween the MO and question asking such thatparticipants correctly manded ‘‘where is[item]?’’ more for preferred items than foritems assumed to be less preferred. Sundberg etal. also tested question asking with novel items(preferred and less preferred) and found thatparticipants manded for the items’ whereaboutswithout additional training. However, manding

for these items was not measured in baseline,which precluded any conclusions about gener-alization effects. Pellecchia and Hineline (2007)taught participants to mand for preferred itemswith an instructor and then probed for transferof mands using the same items with parents,siblings, and peers. The participants did notrequire further training to mand with parents,but they did require additional training tomand with siblings and peers. Taylor et al.(2005) reported similar findings. In these lasttwo studies, the experimenters did not identifyreasons why manding did not generalize acrossrecipients.

For individuals who have difficulty general-izing newly learned skills, active planning andsystematic programming of environmentalconditions may promote maintenance andgeneralization (Stokes & Baer, 1977). Somerecommended strategies include sequentialmodification, training sufficient exemplars,and using indiscriminable contingencies. Thesemethods are intended to structure conditions inthe acquisition phase in a purposeful way thatpromotes the transfer of stimulus control fromtraining stimuli to nontraining stimuli found inthe natural environment. Recent evidencesuggests that the manipulation of MOs mayaffect the assessment of response maintenance.In O’Reilly et al. (in press), three students withautism engaged in higher levels of newly taughtmands when access to the requested item wasrestricted prior to maintenance probes thanwhen access was given. Given these findings, itis plausible that MOs also may be importantwhen assessing and programming for general-ization of skills in untrained contexts. Further-more, such research also may clarify findings ofPellecchia and Hineline (2007) and Taylor etal. (2005) by providing a potential explanationfor the reported failures to generalize.

The purpose of the current study was toevaluate the effects of MOs on generalizationprobes of newly taught mands for threeparticipants. Generalized responding acrosssettings and communication partners was

566 CHRISTINA L. FRAGALE et al.

assessed following periods with and withoutaccess to a preferred item.

METHOD

ParticipantsParticipants were three children who attend-

ed a private elementary school for children withlanguage delays and autism. An educationalgoal for all three children included increasingthe length of requests from simple single wordsto contextually appropriate phrases. Sharon wasa 4-year-old girl with speech disturbance,expressive language disorder, and autism. Hermean length of utterance (MLU) was threewords, and independent verbal responses gen-erally consisted of rote phrases. Sharon scored a42 on the Childhood Autism Rating Scale(CARS; Schopler, Reichler, & Renner, 1988),placing her in the severe autism category. Ellenwas a 4-year-old girl with autism. She scored a36.5 on the CARS, placing her on theborderline between moderate and severe au-tism. Her MLU was four to five words, but sherequested items independently using singlewords. She labeled items using the item nameand occasionally adjectives or descriptors, suchas big, little, or the color of the item. Charliewas an 8-year-old boy with hypotonia, chronicotitis media, congenital scoliosis, and autism.He scored a 46.5 on the CARS, placing him inthe severe autism category. He often engaged invocal stereotypy by making a repetitive ‘‘eeee’’sound and communicated with others using aDynavox speech-generating device. This devicewas operated using a touch screen and consistedof multiple pages with 24 buttons per page.Charlie’s independent communication servedmainly to request items and actions using one-to two-word phrases (e.g., ‘‘eat chips’’).

Three doctoral students in special educationwith extensive classroom experience imple-mented the study. One of these doctoralstudents acted as trainer throughout the study.The trainer taught the specific mand phrases tothe participants during teaching trials andconducted generalization probes across settings.Generalization of newly taught mands was

assessed across the other two doctoral students,who were considered familiar and unfamiliarcommunication partners to the participants.The familiar communication partner had aprevious history of working with the partici-pants, and the unfamiliar communicationpartner did not have any prior history ofworking with the participants. Neither com-munication partner participated in the teachingtrials.

SettingsThe study was conducted in an instructional

setting and two generalization settings. Theinstructional setting was used primarily for one-on-one teaching and consisted of an emptiedclassroom furnished only with several smalltables, chairs, and portable room dividers. Allteaching trials were conducted in the instruc-tional room by the trainer. No other studentswere present in the room during teaching trials.The first generalization setting was the child’sregular classroom. Classrooms were furnishedwith child-sized tables and chairs, and variousareas of the room were decorated and designat-ed for specific activities (e.g., kitchen area, circletime area, reading area, etc.). Generalizationprobes were conducted at a table duringregularly scheduled individualized instructiontime when other students were present butwhole-class instruction was not occurring. Thesecond generalization setting was a cafeteria thatthe participants did not visit on a regular basis.The cafeteria was a small room with picnic styletables, refrigerator, microwave, and sink. Gen-eralization probes were conducted during timeswhen it was generally empty or other peopleentered briefly. Potentially preferred toys orclassroom items were moved out of reach of thechild, leaving only the preferred toy associatedwith the specific target mand present duringteaching trials and generalization probes.

Preference and Communication AssessmentsPrior to beginning the study, a preference

assessment and communication assessmentwere administered to identify behavioral indi-cators of satiation for each participant. The firstassessment, a brief multiple-stimulus without

MOTIVATING OPERATIONS AND GENERALIZATION PROBES 567

replacement (MSWO) preference assessment(DeLeon & Iwata, 1996), was conducted todetermine a rank of preferred items for eachparticipant. The array consisted of toys fromthe classroom that the child’s teacher identifiedas preferred. Toys were used due to theirportability, and edible items were excluded atthe request of the teachers. The top preferreditem identified using the MSWO was selectedfor teaching the target mand phrase individu-alized for each participant. Teachers agreed toremove these toys from the regular schoolenvironment and restrict access for use duringthe study only. Sharon’s preferred toy was a setof wooden blocks that she engaged with byrepeatedly tapping them together. Ellen’spreferred item was a toy with four televisioncharacters that emitted a phrase when a buttonor switch for the specific character wasactivated. She engaged with the toy byrepeatedly pushing the buttons and sometimesrepeated the phrase that the toy emitted.Charlie’s preferred toy was a book with avariety of buttons on the cover that madesounds when pressed. The majority of hisengagement with the book involved repeatedlypressing the buttons and holding it up to hisear. On some occasions he was observed toopen the book and look at the pages.

The second assessment was a communicationassessment to identify indicators of satiationthat was developed by O’Reilly et al. (2009).Behaviors thought to communicate rejectionwere first identified by teachers and confirmedby giving participants continuous access to low-preference items and recording the frequency ofthese rejecting behaviors (see O’Reilly et al. forfurther procedural details). These individual-ized behavioral indicators then were used asoperational definitions to indicate satiation forthe remainder of the study. Sharon’s rejectionbehaviors included putting the item down andnot taking it when it was offered to her. Ellen’srejection behaviors were saying ‘‘no’’ or puttingthe item down and refusing to take it when itwas offered to her. Charlie’s rejection behaviorswere pushing the offered item away orindicating ‘‘all done’’ on his Dynavox device.

Detailed results for the preference and commu-nication assessments can be obtained throughcorrespondence with the first author.

Dependent Variables and Data CollectionDuring baseline and generalization probes,

the dependent variable was a specific targetmand response, developed in accordance withthe participants’ school instructional goals andinput from their teachers. Mands included‘‘May I have blocks, please?’’ for Sharon, ‘‘CanI have Elmo?’’ for Ellen, and ‘‘Can I have book,please?’’ using the Dynavox device for Charlie.Responses were not counted if they were (a)different from the target mand (e.g., ‘‘haveblocks,’’ ‘‘ want Elmo,’’ ‘‘I have Elmo,’’ or ‘‘canI have book?’’), (b) not emitted within 10 s ofthe item presentation, or (c) mands for an itemother than the preferred item. Mands that weresocially valid but different from the target mandwere not scored because we intended to providea controlled demonstration of the effects ofMOs on one specific behavior across untrainedcontexts rather than on the class of behaviorsfor requesting (e.g., reaching towards, pointing,other verbal behavior). Therefore, only onespecific target mand was reinforced. Frequencydata on target mands were calculated as apercentage of 10 trials in which the newlytaught target mand occurred unprompted whenthe item was presented.

During teaching trials, the number of trialsand whether they were completed independent-ly or with prompts were recorded. These datawere not reported but are available from thefirst author.

DesignA multielement design was used to examine

the effects of prior access versus no access onresponding during generalization probes ofnewly taught mands for each participant. Theorder of presession conditions was randomizedinitially; however, due to time constraints (theend of the school year), conditions weresemirandomized. Presession no-access condi-tions always preceded presession access condi-tions when both were assessed on the same day.No more than two conditions were assessed per


day, with a 5-min break between conditions tocontrol for satiation effects.

ProcedureWe probed for the specific mands during

baseline and after teaching trials to assessgeneralization across two settings and twocommunication partners under both presessionaccess and no-access conditions.

Baseline and generalization probes. Each probeconsisted of 10 trials or opportunities to mandfor preferred items. A trial consisted ofpresenting the preferred item within sight butout of reach of the participant for 10 s. If theparticipant used the target phrase, he or she wasgiven access to the preferred item for 10 s. If heor she gave any response other than the targetphrase or did not respond within 10 s of itempresentation, the item was removed from view,marking the end of the trial. A new trial beganafter 3 s. Baseline and generalization probeswere conducted across settings and communi-cation partners under presession access andno-access conditions. Baseline probes wereconducted prior to teaching trials, and gener-alization probes were conducted after theintroduction of teaching trials.

The trainer conducted generalization probesin the classroom and cafeteria. The order ofsettings was randomized. For example, thegeneralization probe was conducted in theclassroom, followed by a short break, and thena generalization probe was conducted in thecafeteria (or vice versa), under both presessionconditions. Generalization probes across com-munication partners were conducted by thefamiliar and unfamiliar persons in the instruc-tional room. Again, the order of communica-tion partners was randomized in bothpresession conditions.

Teaching trials. The purpose of the teachingtrials was to teach a specific target mand phraseto each participant. Therefore, mands for otheritems or responses that varied from the specifictarget mand phrase were not reinforced. Eachpresentation of the item was considered a trial.To confirm interest in the preferred item, the

participant sampled the item for 10 to 15 sprior to teaching trials. If he or she did notengage with the item, the teaching trials werenot conducted but were attempted again thefollowing day. However, none of the partici-pants failed to engage with the preferred items.

The first five consecutive trials consisted ofpresenting the item in front of the participantaccompanied with an immediate prompt. ForSharon and Ellen, the prompt was a full verbalmodel for the specific mand. For Charlie, theprocedures included physical prompts due tothe use of the Dynavox. The device was presenton the table less than a foot directly in front ofCharlie throughout all teaching trials. Inaccordance with how his teachers typicallytaught new icons on the device, the trainershowed Charlie the preferred item and thenspoke the corresponding words while physicallyprompting him to press three icons, ‘‘can Ihave,’’ ‘‘book,’’ and ‘‘please.’’ Charlie was notrequired to make any verbal approximations.The trainer’s verbal behavior accompanied onlyfull physical prompts. After the first fiveconsecutive trials with immediate prompts,the trainer instituted a 5-s prompt delay andmost-to-least prompting hierarchy. For exam-ple, the trainer visually presented the item andwaited 5 s. If Charlie did not respond after 5 s,the trainer physically prompted the response byguiding his finger to press the icon, shadowinghis arm, or using a pointing prompt. The levelof prompt assistance was determined usingclinical discretion rather than a specific criteri-on. If the participant’s response differed fromthe target mand (e.g., a word was left out), theverbal model (Sharon and Ellen) or physicalprompts (Charlie) were repeated until he or sheresponded correctly. Independent and prompt-ed responses were reinforced with access to theitem for 10 s, at which point the item wasremoved and the next teaching trial began.Consecutive trials were separated by 3 to 5 s. Ifthe participant manded for other items, thetrainer either ignored and re-presented themodel or denied access to the item (e.g.,


physically blocked access and said something tothe effect of ‘‘not right now’’). For non-responses, the model was repeated once beforethe item was removed, marking the end of thetrial.

A set of teaching trials was conducted afterevery six baseline or generalization probes andended when the participant either (a) complet-ed 50 trials, (b) exhibited independent mandsusing the target phrase for five consecutivetrials, (c) no longer displayed interest in theitem (e.g., no attempts to reach for or requestthe item, repeated requests for other items), or(d) displayed rejecting behaviors during the 5-sprompt delay for three consecutive trials. Breaks(5 min each) were given approximately every 20teaching trials to reduce potential satiation

effects. However, prompt levels were continuedfrom the trials prior to breaks. Two sets ofteaching trials were conducted for Ellen andCharlie with an average of 25 and 31 trials,respectively. These sets ended due to partici-pants no longer displaying interest in the targetitems. Three sets of 50 teaching trials each wereconducted for Sharon.

Presession access versus no-access conditions.The influence of MOs on manding was assessedby exposing participants to two conditions priorto baseline and generalization probes. Thepresession access condition consisted of givingthe participant free access to the preferred itemin the instructional room. The participant waspresented the item and instructed to play withit. The instructor remained in the room but did

Figure 1. Percentage of trials with the target mand during generalization probes across settings under presessionaccess and no-access conditions for Sharon.


not provide additional verbal or physical

attention. If the participant engaged in rejecting

behaviors, the instructor re-presented the item.

After three displays of rejecting behaviors, the

session was terminated and the child immedi-

ately participated in baseline or generalization

probes. For Sharon, the mean duration to

display three rejecting behaviors was 20 min

(range, 5 to 39 min). For Ellen, the mean

duration was 10 min (range, 7 to 17 min), and

for Charlie, the mean duration was 22 min

(range, 9 to 50 min).

The presession no-access condition consisted

of preventing the participants from accessing

the preferred item no less than 23 hr prior to

baseline and generalization probes. This was

done by removing the item from the classroom.

In addition, we confirmed with parents that

none of the preferred items were present in the

home environments.

Interobserver AgreementInterobserver agreement of target mands

was scored for 33% of both presessionconditions across baseline and generalizationprobes. Two observers simultaneously andindependently observed sessions and scoredthe occurrence of target mands during eachtrial. Interobserver agreement was calculatedby dividing the total number of agreements bythe total number of agreements plus disagree-ments and converting this number to apercentage. Agreement on target mands acrosssettings was 100% for each participant, andagreement across communication partners was100%, 100%, and 98% for Sharon, Ellen, andCharlie, respectively.

Figure 2. Percentage of trials with the target mand during generalization probes across settings under presessionaccess and no-access conditions for Ellen.


RESULTS

Results of presession access and presession noaccess on responding across settings are pre-sented in Figures 1 through 3 for Sharon, Ellen,and Charlie. The top panels show results in theclassroom (familiar setting) where he or shetypically spent the majority of the school day.The bottom panels show results for the cafeteria(unfamiliar setting) where the participants spentthe least amount of time during the school day.Overall, a similar pattern of respondingemerged for all participants.

During baseline probes, none of the partic-ipants manded for preferred items using thetarget mand phrase in either presession access orno-access conditions for the two generalizationsettings (classroom or cafeteria). After the firstset of teaching trials, Ellen consistently manded

in both settings, more in the no-accesscondition (classroom [M ¼ 63.3%; range,60% to 70%] and cafeteria [M ¼ 90%]) thanin the access condition (classroom [M¼ 3.3%;range, 0% to 10%] and cafeteria [M ¼ 3.3%;range, 0% to 10%]). Mands by Sharon andCharlie remained low and undifferentiatedacross both settings after the first set of teachingtrials. However, after additional teaching trials,differentiation of mands between presessionconditions emerged across settings for Sharonand Charlie, for whom mands mainly occurredin the no-access condition rather than the accesscondition. Probes of manding resulted insimilar patterns in familiar and unfamiliarsettings.

Results of presession access and no-accessconditions on responding across communica-

Figure 3. Percentage of trials with the target mand during generalization probes across settings under presessionaccess and no-access conditions for Charlie.


tion partners are presented in Figures 4 through6 for Sharon, Ellen, and Charlie. The toppanels show results in the instructional roomwith the familiar person, and the bottom panelsshow results in the instructional room with theunfamiliar person. During baseline probes,none of the participants used the target mandfor preferred items in either presession condi-tion with either communication partner (famil-iar or unfamiliar person). After the first set ofteaching trials, Ellen manded more with bothpersons in the presession no-access condition(familiar: M ¼ 86.6%, range, 80% to 100%;unfamiliar: M¼ 93.3%, range, 80% to 100%)than in the presession access conditions (famil-iar: M¼ 0%; unfamiliar: M¼ 20%, range, 0%to 60%). Mands for Sharon and Charlieremained close to 0% in both conditions after

the first set of teaching trials. However, afteradditional sets of teaching trials, all participantsmanded more in the presession no-accesscondition than in the presession access condi-tion with familiar and unfamiliar communica-tion partners.

DISCUSSION

Results suggest that MOs are essential toconsider when assessing generalization of spe-cific mands by individuals with autism. Aftertwo sets of teaching trials, all participants beganto use the newly taught mand primarily in thecondition in which access to the preferred itemwas restricted prior to generalization probes.We hypothesize that restricting access mostlikely served as an EO, increasing the value of

Figure 4. Percentage of trials with the target mand during generalization probes across communication partnersunder presession access and no-access conditions for Sharon.


the preferred item and evoking the target mandestablished with access to the reinforcer.Participants did not respond with the newlytaught mand as much, if at all, when they weregiven access to the item prior to generalizationprobes. A likely explanation is that access to theitem served as an AO, decreasing the value ofthe preferred item and making use of the mandless probable. These results are consistent withthose reported by O’Reilly et al. (in press), whodemonstrated that manding primarily occurredwhen access to the reinforcer was limited ratherthan provided prior to maintenance probes.Similarly, for each of the three participants inthe present study, this pattern was observedacross settings and communication partnersthat were not part of the original instructionalconditions. This evidence of a functional

relation between MOs and mands in non-training contexts confirms the critical role ofMOs when assessing and programming forgeneralization of language skills.

These results have several implications. If theobject of the mand has lost value as a reinforcer,it may only appear that the student has notacquired or generalized the mand phrase.Without considering MOs as an influence,absence of responding in acquisition or gener-alization may lead to a variety of programmingdecisions, such as adjusting instructional for-mats, increasing visual or verbal prompts, orincreasing the number of practice opportunities(Scott et al., 2000). However, when respondingfails to occur due to MOs, more parsimoniousprogram decisions may be implemented, suchas restricting access to items before probes are

Figure 5. Percentage of trials with the target mand during generalization probes across communication partnersunder presession access and no-access conditions for Ellen.


conducted in various contexts. Therefore,failure to take into account MOs whenassessing generalization may result in inaccurateand misguided program decisions that havenegative consequences (e.g., programs contin-ued unnecessarily, wasted time or other re-sources). On the other hand, consideration ofMOs may result in positive consequences (e.g.,more valid evaluation of generalization leadingto appropriate program decisions, effectiveteaching and promoting of generalizationduring acquisition phases). The ultimate im-plication is that MOs should be considered tomaximize the accuracy of generalization assess-ments.

Several limitations should be noted. In thegeneralization literature, there has been somedebate on the interpretation of the termgeneralization and how this phenomenon

should be assessed (Cuvo, 2003; Johnston,1979). Some researchers advocate for theassessment of generalization under extinctionconditions. Other researchers subscribe to themore topographical interpretation of general-ization in which newly learned behaviors occurunder nontraining conditions (i.e., acrosssubjects, settings, behaviors, or time) withoutthe same events as those in training conditions(Stokes & Baer, 1977). It is the latter definitionthat applies to our demonstration of general-ization. Another limitation is the absence offidelity data for teaching sessions or generaliza-tion probes, and it may not be feasible torestrict reinforcing items from students withautism who have a limited number of items thatserve as reinforcers. It would be important tostudy how much restriction of reinforcersoutside of instruction is required to maintain

Figure 6. Percentage of trials with the target mand during generalization probes across communication partnersunder presession access and no-access conditions for Charlie


generalized responding. In addition, the mandsmay not have been controlled solely by the MObecause the items were always in view. Becausewe taught, accepted, and reinforced only onespecific mand, our results may not havegenerality to other socially relevant mands andresponses. As an anecdote, during the condi-tions with prior access, participants generallydid not make any effort to mand. However, inthe no-access conditions, Sharon and Ellenengaged in responses that varied from the targetmand (e.g., Ellen manded, ‘‘Can I have Ernie?’’or ‘‘I want Cookie Monster’’) but were notscored for the purposes of our study. Given thedifficulties in communication that are charac-teristic of autism, the influence of MOs onvariability of language or on communicativebehaviors within the same response class areareas worthy of further analysis.

Finally, teaching trials ended for Ellen andCharlie due to manding for other items ordisplaying rejecting behaviors rather thanbecause they met the criterion of five consec-utive independent mands. It is possible that thearbitrarily chosen number of five trials was toohigh. Occasional probing for generalizationduring acquisition may be a worthwhilepractice to explore in further studies ongeneralization. For example, if a student isbeginning to demonstrate skills learned in aone-on-one setting with other peers or indifferent settings, it may also be an opportunetime to introduce multiple opportunities in thegeneralization setting or provide reinforcementfor generalized behaviors (Stokes & Baer,1977).

Future research could extend these findingsto other naturalistic contexts. It would beworthwhile, for example, to examine howteachers, parents, and clinicians could incorpo-rate MOs into natural routines (e.g., duringregular classroom instruction, at the grocerystore, during play groups with peers, and invarious therapies) to program for generalizationof mands with this population.

REFERENCES

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Somecurrent dimensions of applied behavior analysis.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.

Chappell, N., Graff, R. B., Libby, M. E., & Ahearn, W.H. (2009). Further evaluation of the effects ofmotivating operations on preference assessmentoutcomes. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3,660–669.

Cuvo, A. J. (2003). On stimulus generalization andstimulus classes. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12,77–83.

DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of amultiple-stimulus presentation format for assessingreinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 29, 519–533.

Johnston, J. M. (1979). On the relation betweengeneralization and generality. The Behavior Analyst,2, 1–6. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/pmc/articles/PMC2741792/

Lang, R., O’Reilly, M., Sigafoos, J., Machalicek, W.,Rispoli, M., Lancioni, G. E., et al. (2010). The effectsof an abolishing operation intervention componenton play skills, challenging behavior, and stereotypy.Behavior Modification, 34, 267–289.

Langthorne, P., McGill, P., & O’Reilly, M. (2007).Incorporating ‘‘motivation’’ into the functionalanalysis of challenging behavior: On the interactiveand integrative potential of the motivating operation.Behavior Modification, 31, 466–487.

Laraway, S., Syncerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A.(2003). Motivating operations and terms to describethem: Some further refinements. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 36, 407–414.

McComas, J., Hoch, H., Paone, D., & El-Roy, D.(2000). Escape behavior during academic tasks: Apreliminary analysis of idiosyncratic establishingoperations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33,479–493.

Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminativeand motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149–155.

National Research Council. (2001). Educating childrenwith autism. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

O’Reilly, M., Aguilar, J., Fragale, C., Pierce, N., Lang, R.,Edrisinha, C., et al. (in press). Effects of motivatingoperations on the maintenance probes of manding forchildren with autism spectrum disorders. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis.

O’Reilly, M., Edrisinha, C., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G.,Cannella, H., Machalicek, W., et al. (2007).Manipulating the evocative and abative effects of anestablishing operation: Influences on challengingbehavior during classroom instruction. BehavioralInterventions, 22, 137–145.

O’Reilly, M. F., Lang, R., Davis, T., Rispoli, M.,Machalicek, W., Sigafoos, J., et al. (2009). A


systematic examination of different parameters ofpresession exposure to tangible stimuli that maintainproblem behavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 42, 773–783.

O’Reilly, M. F., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., Rispoli, M.,Lang, R., Chan, J., et al. (2008). Manipulating thebehavior-altering effect of the motivating operation:Examination of the influence on challenging behaviorduring leisure activities. Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 29, 333–340.

Pellecchia, M., & Hineline, P. N. (2007). Generalizationof mands in children with autism from adults topeers. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8, 483–491.Retrieved from http://www.temple.edu/psychology/hineline/documents/Pellecchia-Hineline-07.pdf

Reed, D. D., Pace, G. M., & Luiselli, J. K. (2009). Aninvestigation into the provision of choice in tangibleconditions of a functional analysis. Journal of Physicaland Developmental Disabilities, 21, 485–491.

Rispoli, M., O’Reilly, M., Lang, R., Machalicek, W.,Davis, T., Lancioni, G., et al. (2011). Effects ofmotivating operations on problem and academicbehavior in classrooms. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 44, 187–192.

Roantree, C. F., & Kennedy, C. H. (2006). A paradoxicaleffect of presession attention on stereotypy: Anteced-ent attention as an establishing, not an abolishing,operation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39,381–384.

Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., & Renner, B. R. (1988). Thechildhood autism rating scale (CARS). Los Angeles,CA: Western Psychological Services.

Scott, J., Clark, C., & Brady, M. (2000). Communica-tion: Meaning and competence. In Students with

autism: Characteristics and instruction programming(pp. 205–245). Belmont, CA: Thomson HigherEducation.

Shafer, E. (1994). A review of interventions to teach amand repertoire. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 12,53–66. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748547/

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY:Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicittechnology of generalization. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.

Sundberg, M. L., Loeb, M., Hale, L., & Eigenheer, P.(2002). Contriving establishing operations to teachmands for information. The Analysis of VerbalBehavior, 18, 15–29. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755388/?tool¼pmcentrez

Sundberg, M. L., & Michael, J. (2001). The benefits ofSkinner’s analysis of verbal behavior for children withautism. Behavior Modification, 25, 698–724.

Taylor, B. A., & Harris, S. L. (1995). Teaching childrenwith autism to seek information: Acquisition of novelinformation and generalization of responding. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 3–14.

Taylor, B. A., Hoch, H., Potter, B., Rodriguez, A.,Spinnato, D., & Kalaigian, M. (2005). Manipulatingestablishing operations to promote initiations towardpeers in children with autism. Research in Develop-mental Disabilities, 26, 385–392.

Received May 3, 2011Final acceptance January 17, 2012Action Editor, Bridget Taylor


the influence of motivating operations on … · the influence of motivating operations on...

Documents