Using An Intervention Increases Or Decreases The Number Of Times Unwanted Behavior

Positive reinforcement occurs after a behavior is exhibited in order to insure the behavior will continue. The following research studies used positive reinforcement treatment plans to increased compliance behavior for children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder that exhibit stereotypical behavior. The results showed that by using positive reinforcement techniques, children’s disruptive behavior was reduced. Results showed that the positive reinforcement procedures were very effective in various settings such as a school, in home and clinical settings. This paper will discuss the positive reinforcement techniques used to reduce disruptive behavior in children with ODD and ADHD. The purpose of the treatment intervention is to encourage participants to be responsible by putting their toys away when told, by using positive reinforcement. The goal is for participants to learn, how to exhibit good behavior.

The article “No! I will not! Understanding and responding to student defiance” is published by Andrea Smith and Elizabeth Bondy, 4-th grade teacher and a University of Florida College of Education professor respectively, in Childhood education magazine. It contains a thorough analysis of the defiance issue as well as a manual, regulating the conduct of a teacher, who pursues a goal of effective students’ behavior management.

Multiple treatments have been established to treat escape maintained behavior. Escape extinction is often utilized in the treatment of behaviors that are maintained through the removal of demands. Escape extinction involves no longer allowing the delay, removal, or avoidance of demands contingent on the occurrence of the problem behavior (Iwata, Pace, Kalsher, Cowdery, & Cataldo, 1990). Escape extinction provides some advantages as it is easily compatible with other treatments, increasing the effectiveness of those treatments. However, escape extinction may have some disadvantages including that it may be difficult for those providing treatment to do so with high levels of integrity due to the effort involved in doing so. If treatment is not implemented consistently it may make it more difficult to implement extinction in the future (McConnachi & Carr, 1997). There may also be an increase in the targeted response and aggression following extinction (Lerman, Iwata, & Wallace, 1999). While extinction is effective there are associated side effects that are incompatible with wide spread use in many public settings such as classrooms. There is a need for

This report detailing issues in behavior intervention first reviews information regarding the use of functional behavior assessments and then explains intervention strategies which may be effective in dealing with behavior issues in schools. In addition, issues that impede treatment are discussed. This source appears to be objectively written with the goal to inform the reader of functional behavior assessments, treatment for problem behavior and issues which may cause treatment to fail. This source may be useful when researching Behavior Intervention Plans because team members and

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is one of a group of behavioral disorders in the disruptive behavior disorders category. Children who have these disorders tend to be disruptive with a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures. These children often rebel, are stubborn, argue with adults, and refuse to obey. They have angry outbursts, have a hard time controlling their temper, and display a constant pattern of aggressive behaviors. ODD is one of the more common mental health disorders found in children and adolescents (AACAP, 2009). It is also associated with an increased risk for other forms of psychopathology, including other disruptive behavior disorders as well as mood or anxiety problems (Martel,

The Behavior Analyst Certification Board, Inc. (BACB) has adopted ten guidelines for professional conduct for behavior analyst. Guideline four discusses, The Behavior Analyst and the Individual Behavior Change Program. The guideline states, “The behavior analyst (a) designs programs that are based on behavior analytic principles, including assessments of effects of other intervention methods, (b) involves the client or the client-surrogate in the planning of such programs, (c) obtains the consent of the client, and (d) respects the right of the client to terminate services at any time.” Within guideline four, Least Restrictive Procedures 4.10 dictates, “The behavior analyst reviews and appraises the restrictiveness of alternative interventions and always recommends the least restrictive procedures likely to be effective in dealing with a behavior problem” (Bailey & Burch, 2011.) Based on our ethical guidelines as future behavior analyst we must guarantee our clients interventions are the least restrictive. Promoting least restrictive interventions in school settings ensures the utilization of antecedent manipulations. Utilizing antecedent manipulations may assist with deescalating or preventing further maladaptive behavior. Preventing maladaptive behavior decreases the risks of potential negative side effects such as emotional responding. Employing our ethical guidelines ensures the dignity of our students and promotes student independence.

Thomas is a high school student who has been suspended for getting upset in class, yelling at other students, and cursing at teachers and other staff members. Thomas is on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for and emotional disability. During the IEP process, Thomas’s team created a Behavior Improvement Plan (BIP) using the results from a Functional Behavioral Analysis (FBA). As the year progressed, Thomas’s cumulative days of suspension reached ten days and he therefore needed a manifestation determination meeting to determine if his behaviors were because of his identified disability.

By June 28, 2018, Jayden King Jr. will decrease his level of defiance (refusing to obey and follows directive of someone of authority). Jayden will decrease the number of episodes during direct instruction to less than four times per month over a three-month period. The teacher will use a behavior chart to record the number of times the targeted behavior occurs a day. Based on the number of occurrences, the child’s behavior will be rated on a scale from 0-5. Zero indicates the least amount of occurrence and five indicating the maximum number of occurrences. The replacement behavior is targeted based on the data collected from several behavioral assessments. Jayden’s continuous defiant behavior, when given a directive by an adult, has disrupted the class and affected his school work immensely. Based on the strategies and interventions that will be used to conquer the undesirable behavior, Jayden 's inappropriate behavior will lessen and eventually fade away.

EBIs to reduce disruptive behavior and increase academic achievement can include trainings and implementation support at the school, class-wide, and individual student-level, and are often either academic or behavioral in nature. Overall, implementation of both universal (i.e. class-wide) and targeted (i.e. student-level) interventions have demonstrated positive impacts on decreasing disruptive behaviors and increasing student academic achievement (Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Muething, & Vega, 2014; Vannest, Davis, Davis, Mason, & Burke, 2010).Ross, Romer, and Horner (2012) also found that teachers in schools implementing Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports with high fidelity

Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) is one of the most common clinical disorders in children and adolescents (Nock, Kazdin, Hirpi & Kessler, 2007). Greene et al. (2002) defines ODD as “a recurrent pattern of developmentally inappropriate levels of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures”. ODD primarily consists of stubborn (e.g., tantrums) and aggressive behaviors that the child attempts to rationalize based on the circumstances rather than view as consequential and problematic (Kazdin, 2010). Therefore, ODD can have serious implications for the child’s functioning at home, in school, and in the community, so parents of children with ODD are more likely to utilize child mental health services (Kazdin, 2010). The history, symptoms, diagnosis, prevalence, age of onset, duration, risk factors, comorbidity, and treatments of ODD will be discussed, as well as the rationale behind the revisions from the fourth (DSM-IV) to fifth editions (DSM-5) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Boylan, Vaillancourt, Boyle, and Szatmari (2007) said of the generally widespread disorders, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is among the most common in childhood. Oppositional behaviors have a tendency to weaken as children grow-up, these behaviors are demonstrated by the majority of children at an early age sometimes progressing into the predictable fits of temper and violent behaviors (Mireault, Rooney, Kouwenhoven, and Hannan, 2008). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines ODD as a model of childhood manners that are harsh, critical, hurtful and uncooperative for at least six months and these manners are serious enough that the conduct messes up the child’s performance on a regular basis. The DSM-III launched ODD as an isolated analysis (as cited in APA, 1980).

The diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder mainly comes as a result of observing certain characteristics of individuals’ behaviors. For instance, children who demonstrate disrespect towards authorities in their surroundings are usually diagnosed with the disorder. It is an exceptionally prevalent psychiatric disorder that has detrimental repercussions for slightly over three per cent of children and adolescents (Walter Matthys, 2012). According to the article, individuals suffering from Oppositional Defiant Disorder are mainly oppositional, antisocial and aggressive (Walter Matthys, 2012).

Danforth states how a behavior management flow chart (BMFC) is put into place with six steps to help parents with oppositional defiant disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The chart was put in place to help parents reach the goal of developing parenting skills that would change their interaction with their child to decrease disruptive child behavior, defiance, aggressive disruptive behavior, and prosocial compliance. This skill was done after an analysis of interactions between the parents and their child. The parent’s had difficulty breaking the pattern of using negative reinforcement that contributes to oppositional defiant disorder. The six steps on the chart included command (instructions), waiting silently (no verbal interaction while waiting for the child to follow the directions), decision (child complying or non-complying), praise (positive reinforcement) or reprimand (verbally state the non-compliance with eye contact short to the point including a time out warning but nonverbal until compliance). Hineline describes the ABC’s contingency term as “A” for when the parent will tell the child to put a fun thing away (coercion), “B” for when the child whines (defiant behavior), and “C” for when the parent does not make the child put the fun thing away. This evidence shows that a child’s arousals of strong feelings of dislike towards the parent verbal interactions, repeated commands, and allowing the child to get their way because the parent used the wrong force or threats (negative reinforcement). The goal is to help parents avoid using coercive practice and use the

There have been many evidence based practices that have been researched and used to decrease these types of behaviors with the end goal being to fully extinguish the inappropriate outbursts and replacing it with a more suitable response. One intervention that has been used and proven to be successful is the use of differential reinforcement of alternative behaviors

For example, student behavior deemed undesirable can be followed by a private reprimand or isolation from the classroom. During the application of these punishments, the students’ dignity must be maintained and cannot be sullied. In comparison, Punishment II involves the removal of a desired stimulus or the withholding of an anticipated positive stimulus (Moore, 2009). For example, inappropriate student behavior can result in the loss of free time, lunch time, or computer usage for a week. Applied behavior analysis (ABA) was first defined as the ‘. . .process of applying sometimes tentative principles of behavior to the improvement of specific behaviors and simultaneously evaluating whether or not any changes noted are indeed attributable to the process of application’ (Schloss & Smith, 1994, p.2). ABA differs from behavior modification as the behaviors targeted for change are socially