| 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? |
|---|---|---|
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | possible multiple functions | increase in challenging behaviors if response blocking |
| Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) | ||
| Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) | This will require some time for Lily to learn the contingency. | She might not generalize the skill. May need to add a competing stimulus intervention to it. |
| Augmented competing stimulus assessment (Hagopian et al., 2020) | eh | eh |
| Competing stimulus | To identify a competing stimulus that can effectively interfere with mouthing behavior | time for treatment |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | Need to identify the function and what type of stereotypy (lower-order, higher-order). | Implementing selected multi-treatment package across all environments and people. |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | ||
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | Once we determine the function we can develop interventions to decrease mouthing | NA |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | They would need to be made aware that they cannot assume they know why she is doing it and it needs to be investigated first | safety of others while allowing the child to mouth. Some children I have worked with like to mouth on other people's body parts such as their arms so performing an FA could be troublesome |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | During our initial sessions we will also take date to determine the function of the behavior. We will first observe an alone condition for automatic reinforcement. Next we will provide attention to determine if attention reinforces the behavior. Finally, we will make demands and allow escape to see if the behaviors are negatively reinforced. | The possibility of the behavior increasing is high but should be short lived. The be discriminated through the FA process without repeated trials. Demands may trigger other behaviors such as aggression. |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | ||
| Leveraging restrictive behavior for interactive play (Watkins et al., 2019) | Try to match each of the participating individual's interests with an activity that they all might enjoy | Staff or caregivers may need encouragement as they trial-and-error activities |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | It is a quicker alternative to an FA and is more accurate than an FBA | escalation of behavior |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | ||
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | ||
| Competing stimulus | Having to find a socially acceptale replacement for the mouthing, may take some time. Needing to train Lily on how to engage with the new stimulus may take time. Collect data. Be willing to probe different options | Invalid stimuls results, getting Lily to "buy in", efficacy of the procedure. |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | It may take time to identify an appropriate intervention | Finding a replacement behavior that competes with mouthing objects |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | increased mouthing | competing reinforcer |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | An FA needs to be used to determine the function of the behavior. | Implementing the FA accurately. |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | We must identify the function of mouthing and if it is truly automatically reinforced. It is likely that she could be mouthing for other reasons. | Mouthing is going to continue until the function is addressed |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | possible side-effects of functional analysis | faulty implementation, data collection mistakes, bootleg reinforcement |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | First the screening for automatically-reinforced behavior would be given. If the mouthing was determined to have an automatic function then implementing a competing stimulus procedure. Lily could be given free access to the items determined to compete to hopefully decrease mouthing. | Lily may need significant prompting to engage with competing stimulus depending on her level of cognitive functioning. |
| Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) | ||
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | This will allow us to determine the function of the behavior and confirm that it is in fact an automatically reinforced behavior. With this information, we can create an intervention that will be effective and function based. | Difficulty gaining control of the environment to create a true alone condition, interfering maladaptive behavior |
| FA screening for automatically-reinforced behavior (Querim et al., 2013) | ||
| 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? |
