| Identify a strategy that may be effective in this scenario. | When describing the treatment to caregivers or staff, what would you tell them to expect as far as implementation and outcomes? | What are the possible clinical obstacles you may encounter? |
|---|---|---|
| Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) | The behavior may increase initially. | Increased behavior and/or a new behavior appears. |
| Choice-making intervention for restrictive behaviors (Fisher et al., 2019) | ||
| Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) | ||
| Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) | short increase and have them trained | generalization and maintenance |
| Augmented competing stimulus assessment (Hagopian et al., 2020) | I would explain that the treatment is likely to result in increased engagement with alternative stimuli, but ensure they were informed that response blocking or other restrictive procedures would be involved. | Response blocking may alter the Cyrus's behavior make harder to determine the intrinsic reinforcing value of the competing stimuli, and generalization may be limited. |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | ||
| Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) | ||
| Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) | ||
| Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) | This approach involves giving Cyrus access to a preferred competing item just before or during those key times. We may also include brief prompting to help him engage with that item and possibly use response interruption or redirection if stereotypy occurs. Over time, we aim to reduce reliance on these supports as Cyrus becomes more successful with his tasks. | Generalization and Fading of Supports |
| Intervention for perseverative speech (Kuntz et al., 2020) | staff training, sufficient staff/time | |
| Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) | The outcome should reduce the problem behaviors and increase more appropriate behavior by learning how to access reinforcement from the competing stimulus. | The client may not respond to any of the alternative stimulus. |
| Choice-making intervention for restrictive behaviors (Fisher et al., 2019) | Ideally the choice of table work and self care activities to practice first/next (and subsequent verbal praise or tangible reinforcement depending) will engage the learner enough to reduce the rates of stereotypy during these activities. | The praise and/or tangible reinforcement coupled with choice might not be reinforcing enough to compete with the stereotypy. |
| Competing stimulus | ||
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | Challenging bxs | Distraction |
| Competing stimulus | That we need to find a variety of competing stimuli so that we can combat the reinforcement. | that the consumer will be further distracted. |
| Augmented competing stimulus assessment (Hagopian et al., 2020) | This will give us options to increase socially appropriate behaviors in school. We will need to systematically fade this out, but it will give him more immediate access to educational content. | The stimulus will be hard to fade out. |
| Choice-making intervention for restrictive behaviors (Fisher et al., 2019) | Cyrus may need a quiet area in the beginning to minimize distraction. Possibly use of headphone to avoid noise distraction during this time. | Environmental factors- noise, visual distraction |
baby steps | resistance | |
| Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) | To expect that once the treatment is removed the behaviour may increase again. That the vocal stereotypy may still be stronger than the redirection response. That it may take some time for Cyrus to understand the interruption and redirection. | He continues to be distracted by the vocal stereotypy. That once the redirective responses are faded, the vocal stereotypy may reappear. That the procedure may still interfere with completing the required tasks. |
| Augmented competing stimulus assessment (Hagopian et al., 2020) | ||
| Intervention for perseverative speech (Kuntz et al., 2020) | there may be alot of increase of behavior in the beginning | distress from client |
| Intervention for perseverative speech (Kuntz et al., 2020) | It may not generalize to the natural environment when the intervention is removed | Educational staff may not have the training or time to implement intervention, the intervention might not be able to be faded |
| Augmented competing stimulus assessment (Hagopian et al., 2020) | not sure if the new stimuli can compete and for where and how long | The same as above |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | We will be observing the client in the alone condition and recording data representative of their engagement in the vocal stereotypy. | Identifying competing stimuli and generalizing to other conditions |
| Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) | ||
| Identify a strategy that may be effective in this scenario. | When describing the treatment to caregivers or staff, what would you tell them to expect as far as implementation and outcomes? | What are the possible clinical obstacles you may encounter? |
