Issues of Conducting Research on Setting Events: Measurement and Control of Dependent and Independent Variables.
Setting event literature has generally failed to address issues of concern in the measurement and control of the three terms of the operant, including antecedents, behaviors, and consequences. We review experiments that do not sufficiently demonstrate the existence of setting events, along with some that include procedures appropriate for investigating setting events. We consider setting events to be a fourth term of an operant, and suggest that in order for an examination of setting events, precise measurement and, in some cases, control, of the three-term contingency is necessary. Additionally, we suggest some methods for approaching this challenge.
While working in school environments, behavior problems in the classroom frequently are attributed to events that may have occurred at home before school. Teachers say things like, "I knew the minute he got to school that he was going to have a bad day", or, "She must not have taken her medication this morning, because she's really acting up." It seems intuitive that events that occur before a child arrives at school impact that child's behavior during the school day. No one would dispute the importance of getting a good night's sleep, having a healthy breakfast, or taking prescribed medication with respect to behavior at school. And no one would deny that not sleeping well, skipping breakfast, or having a fight with a sibling might contribute to behavior problems later that day. These, however, are just assumptions. They seem intuitive, but in order for these elements to be useful in avoiding behavior problems, they must be examined in a systematic way. The study of setting events provides this opportunity.
Setting events are events in the surrounding context of a target behavior which reliably influence the relation among the three terms, antecedent, behavior, and consequence, of a given operant. Functionally, the occurrence of a setting event increases or decreases the probability of a target behavior by operating on one or more components of the three-term contingency. The setting event may, in effect, be considered a fourth term to Skinner's (1938/1991) original three-term contingency (p.178). It is a term that is necessarily broad, in that it must have the ability to encompass operations acting on any part of the operant, from potentiating the consequence [i.e. Michael's (1982) establishing operation], to transforming stimulus control, to topographical changes that make the target response physically easier, or more difficult, to emit. The breadth of the term should not, however, suggest that the term is one that may be applied capriciously. In order for the term to be germane in any given situation, exper imental control of all of the four terms of the contingency must be demonstrated. And in order for good experimental control to be demonstrable, all four of the terms must be operationally defined. We reviewed twenty-four data based studies that examined setting-events (see Appendix A for a list of the articles). In reviewing this literature, we identified four problems that need to be addressed: Measurement and control of both the dependent and independent variables.
Measurement of the Dependent Variable
There are a number of problems associated with measurement systems used to study the effects of setting events on dependent variables. One of the most common problematic methods that has gained wide acceptance is the interval recording system, used to measure dependent variables. With this data recording method, an observational session is divided into equal intervals. The observer marks those intervals in which the target behavior occurs one or more times (known as "partial-interval", which tends to overestimate actual responding) or marks those intervals in which the target behavior occurs continuously throughout the interval (known as "whole-interval", which tends to underestimate actual responding) (Johnson & Pennypacker, 1993, p. 125). The partial-interval method is the more common of the two in setting event literature. In addition to overestimating the occurrence of the target behavior, this observation system presents difficulties for reliability measures. Since observers are simply reporting on whet her or not a target behavior occurs in the interval, the observers may not be reporting on the occurrence of the same behavioral event. Two or more observers may agree that a target behavior occurs during an interval, and yet this "agreement" might be based on the observation of different instances of behavior. Instead of recording all responses in the defined response class for the study, this method of discontinuous measurement only samples from the responses made. Johnson and Pennypacker (1993) advise, "Discontinuous observation both invites inaccuracy and prevents knowing how much inaccuracy results" (p. 125). Yet even with these warnings, setting events studies commonly utilize discontinuous measurement systems (e.g. Chandler, Fowler, & Lubeck, 1992; Dunlap, Kern-Dunlap, Clarke, & Robbins, 1991; Durand & Mapstone, 1998, Expt. 2; Homer, 1980; O'Reilly, 1995; O'Reilly, 1997; Smith, Iwata, Goh, & Shore, 1995, Study 4; Wacker, Harding, Cooper, Derby, Peck, Asmus, Berg, & Brown, 1996).
Many setting event studies not only use dubious measurement systems, but they also fail to define the antecedent stimulus, the response, and the consequence of the three-term contingency sufficiently (see Table 1). It should be noted that Table 1 reflects inclusion of the complete operational definition of the four terms of the operant, however, reference to a complete description of a term is not intended to imply that those same articles necessarily include complete reports of the measurement of their occurrence. In fact, frequently they do not (e.g. Carr, Yarbrough, & Langdon, 1997; Dunlap et al., 1991; Greer, Dorow, Williams, McCorkle, & Asnes, 1991; Haring & Kennedy, 1990; Smith et al., 1995), and it is up to the reader to assume that if the target behavior occurred, that the antecedent and consequence occurred as well. Though the definition of the target behavior itself is sound in most studies, several report target behaviors that are not operationally defined (e.g. Colella, Ratey, & Glaser, 1992; Tay lor, Rush, Hetrick, & Sandman, 1993). It is more common for the definition of the antecedent and consequent stimuli to be incomplete (e.g. Belfiore, Browder, & Mace, 1993; Hutt & Vaizey, 1966; Sanders, Dadds, & Bor, 1989). Because the descriptions of these stimulus events are defident for the reader, it is uncertain whether or not they are complete enough for the experimenter to measure them accurately.
Without measurement of the operant, setting event research is incomplete. Again, it is unclear whether the authors of various studies did not measure the operant, or whether they simply do not report how that was done. Durand and Mapstone (Expt. 2, 1998) manipulated musical selection, which they referred to as a setting event, and examined its effect on challenging behavior. However, they failed to report measurement of either the antecedent stimuli or the events consequent to the behavior of interest. This neglect of the operant does not allow the musical selection to be considered a setting event. The possibility that occurrence of challenging behavior was influenced by change in the antecedent and/or consequent events prevents conclusions about the effect of musical selection. Rago, Parker, and Cleland (1978) similarly failed to measure the operant, thus allowing a conclusion of a simple correlational connection between social behavior and amount of space. Some authors describe consequence measures in the absence of explicit antecedent measures in the three-term contingency (e.g. O'Reilly, 1997; Wacker et al., 1996). Other studies describe measures of antecedent stimuli, but have no measures of consequences (e.g. Repp, Singh, Karsh, & Deitz, 1991), though this is less common. While it is probably unnecessary to provide documentation of the occurrence of the antecedents and consequences, the description of the relation between these terms and the target behavior must be complete enough to convince the reader that the operant, as a unit, occurred consistently. It should be noted that several studies of setting events utilize analog probe techniques which describe complete operants in terms of the motivation (i.e., escape, positive reinforcement), but seldom report data on the complete operant.
Without measurement of the operant in addition to the occurrence of the setting event, conclusions regarding the impact of setting events are speculative. Operationally defining the unit that is to be measured, taking accurate measures of the entire unit, and then assessing that accuracy are all necessary in ensuring that conclusions reached are valid. Good measurement is the cornerstone of good science.
Setting Event Measurement
Setting events are frequently inadequately defined and measured. For example, Homer (1980) defined the examined setting event as the presence of an "enriched" versus "austere" environment. The difference between these two environments was defined as a "large" versus "small" number of toys and objects. "Large" and "small" are terms familiar to the language of our culture, but subject to interpretation by the reader. Homer did not distinguish between these terms with respect to number of measurable units, a problem that could have been easily solved. Further, there are no reliability indices reported for the measurement of the setting event, thus, it is unclear whether or not Homer's observers agreed. Homer is not the only investigator who overlooks these elements. Durand and Mapstone (Expt. 2, 1998) reported the setting event of interest as slow versus fast beat music. However, no definition or measurement of these stimuli was reported, and reliability indices are also notably absent here.
Setting events are sometimes measured using the kinds of discontinuous measurement systems mentioned earlier. Alternatively, setting events are often identified through interviews or checklists performed by childcare workers, observers, or parents (e.g. Kennedy & Meyer, 1996; Northrup, Fusilier, Swanson, Roane, & Borrero, 1997), and sometimes these are conducted without concern for reliability (e.g. Colella, Ratey, & Glaser, 1992; Durand & Mapstone, 1998; Hating & Kennedy, 1990; Homer, 1980). Most existing instruments have not been evaluated for reliability and validity (cf. Fox & Conroy, 1995). Even with direct observation sampling procedures, such as Touchette, MacDonald, & Langer's (1985) scatter plot, which was reported to have acceptable reliability by the authors, others have found the interobserver agreement on such tools to be low (cf. Fox, Conroy, Ambrose, Childress, Stoebe, Beicher, Jesse, Huff, Palmer, & Armstrong, 1998).
Issues of Control
The troublesome measurement issues discussed above contribute directly to the second problem in setting event literature, one of experimental control. In order for setting events to be established as such, their manipulation must be shown to have systematic and reliable effects on the target behavior. However, these effects must be demonstrated while holding other possible sources of influence constant, namely, the antecedent and consequent stimuli. It is meaningless to suggest that "setting events" affect behavior if other variables, such as the schedule of reinforcement, are not held constant. "Setting event" is a misnomer under these conditions. Chandler, Fowler, & Lubeck (1992), for example, investigated the effect of several "setting events," such as teacher presence, peer group composition, materials provided, and amount of space, on peer-directed and teacher-directed activity. Problematically, Chandler et al. did not report any control or measure of antecedent and consequent events. We cannot conclude that the three-term contingency alone does not adequately account for variability if we do not observe variation in frequency of behavior when antecedent and consequent stimuli are constant. And if the three terms of the operant are not controlled, we cannot conclude that the introduction and manipulation of a fourth term constitutes setting event research. We cannot even discuss the fourth term as a setting event, we can only say that it is a source of variance, or perhaps merely a potential source of variance, given the lack of control over the operant.
Few studies control setting events and the operant and do it well. One that does is the examination of the influence of methylphenidate (Ritalin) on the effectiveness of common classroom reinforcers by Northrup et al. (1997). In an ABAB reversal design, students participated in a learning task in which they were presented with math worksheets (discriminative stimuli), asked to complete math problems (the targeted response), and earned tokens (reinforcers) for the number of math problems completed. The use of this learning task allowed the experimenters to have tight control of the operant. Two observers scored all of the math worksheets. The setting event was the administration of Ritalin or a placebo. The parent completed a checklist daily to confirm that the child received the dose, however, the parent was blind to whether the child received Ritalin or the placebo. The quality of the Northrup et al. study is seemingly rare, likely because of the extreme difficulty in establishing this kind of control in ap plied settings. Some would argue that the type of design implemented by Northrup et al. is contrived and somewhat removed from the typical behavior of classrooms. Certainly, the Northrup et al. study does not examine social behavior, and if social behavior is the subject of study it is likely that a design similar to Northrup's study may not be appropriate. However, the Northrup study does provide a model which other researchers may use in designing studies to examine setting events.
It is a given that experimentally arranged control of both the operant and setting events can be elusive. One alternative is to measure particular operants and inspect the correlating setting events. Though arguably less systematic than true experimental research, this type of correlational approach allows the identification of variables for examination in more tightly controlled studies. Kennedy and Itkonen (1993), for example, explored the relation between morning routines and problem behavior. In the functional assessment phase, they allowed the setting event (morning routine) to vary naturally, and examined the occurrence of the problem behavior in the context of a contingency contract. In the contingency contract, the antecedent stimulus was a transition during the day, and the consequence was access to a preferred event contingent on appropriate behavior. Surprisingly, during the setting event intervention phase, only the occurrence of the setting events and problem behaviors were measured. Antecedents and consequences were not identified. The identification of setting events in the analog functional assessment phase is convincing for that particular set of contingencies. However, if the experimenters had gone on to measure antecedents and consequences during the setting event intervention phase, the conclusion that setting events were responsible for the changes in the frequencies of problem behavior in that phase would have been more compelling. Other studies show similar procedures of tight control in analog functional assessment phases and less rigid control in the interventions themselves (e.g. Wacker et al., 1996).
It is often argued that measurement and control problems are the status quo in applied settings and that when research is done in the "real world", control is too difficult to achieve. But as Sidman (1960/1988) points out, "Acceptance of variability as unavoidable or, in some sense, as representative of the 'real world' is a philosophy that leads to the ignoring of relevant factors" (p.152). There is no question that controlling not only the three-term contingency, but the setting event as well, is challenging 'at best. However, if we are to draw meaningful conclusions about the causes of behavioral events in the classroom, it is a challenge we must be willing to accept. To do otherwise would be to merely speculate about correlates of the behaviors in which we are interested.
Our goal is to establish the reliability of the measurement of setting events, and further to validate the influence of those setting events on problem behavior and social interactions. We are currently in the development stages of the reliability portion of our project. In our project, we will be measuring the social interactions of children in the classroom, occurrence of an academic operant, and the occurrence of setting events.
Shores and his colleagues (i.e. Gunter, Jack, Shores, Carrell, & Flowers, 1994; Shores, Gunter & Jack, 1993; Shores, Jack, Gunter, Ellis, DeBriere & Wehby, 1993; Shores, Wehby, & Jack, 1999) argue that many prosocial and antisocial behaviors which occur in classrooms by students with emotional and behavioral disorders are under the control of social stimuli in the classroom. Therefore, social behavior is defined as behavior under the control of other people's behavior. The interactions with teachers and peers provide the stimuli, both antecedent and consequent that control the social behavior of others. To be successful in analyzing the effects of setting factors on classroom behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders, we must identify the contingencies for social behaviors. Measuring naturally occurring social behavior for the purposes of assessing the effects of potential setting events requires a data collection system that will code not only targeted responses, but also the antecedent a nd subsequent social stimuli that potentially control those responses. Such a system requires measuring the social behaviors of target students as well as the behaviors of those with whom they are interacting.
In our project, social interaction data will be collected in classrooms by observers using computers with sequential interaction software [Multiple option observation system for experimental studies, MOOSES (Tapp, Wehby, & Ellis, 1995)1 on laptop computers. The data system allows observers to record interactions by coding who emitted a behavior, the topography of the behavior, and to whom the behavior is directed. A stop code is entered when no social behavior is emitted by or to the target student for at least ten seconds. The system provides continuous data collection on the sequence of interactions. A sequence of interaction is defined as those events that are recorded between stop codes.
The interaction data will be analyzed using lag sequential analysis procedures, which provide conditional probabilities (CP) of the occurrence of events that are antecedent and subsequent to all response topographies of each participant. The conditional probabilities are used to identify the antecedent and consequent social stimuli for any given response, thereby describing classes of naturally occurring social behaviors, defined by particular sets of three term contingencies. We may assume that a behavior of a teacher might serve as a stimulus for a predictable response by a student, which is followed by a teacher response that serves as a consequence on a particular schedule. The conditional probabilities of a student's responses should identify responses of others in the environment that are at least mathematically, if not functionally, related to that student's responses. For example, a social operant behavior commonly observed in classrooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders is related to student compliance (Figure 1). The three term contingencies for compliance are comprised of a mand by the teacher (antecedent), followed by student compliance (response) with a CP of .80, which is then followed by either a teacher mand (a consequence) with the CF = .25, teacher feedback (a consequence) with CP = .20, or the stop code (CP = .45). The remaining events following student compliance are distributed among a number of different codes and appear to be unrelated to the student's compliance response.
As stated, conditional probabilities show mathematical relations, which may or may not be functional relations. To establish that mathematical relations demonstrated through sequential analysis have a functional effect requires that the naturally occurring operant behaviors identified be subjected to experimental analysis. It is only through experimental manipulation of the antecedent and consequent events of specified targeted responses that we can ensure that we have identified the three term contingencies of naturally occurring operant behaviors. Therefore, several operant behaviors, both antisocial and prosocial, will be identified for each participant and verified through experimental manipulation of the antecedents and consequences.
The mathematical relation describing the mand-compliance-teacher attention operant discussed could be analyzed functionally by withholding teacher attention (both teacher mands and teacher feedback) as a consequence to student compliance. In other words, an extinction procedure would be implemented targeting the compliance behavior. A simple ABAB reversal design would confirm or disconfirm that teacher attention is a positive reinforcer for compliance, and that the mand-compliance-teacher attention sequence is, by virtue of this functional relation, an operant. With this information we can begin monitoring setting events and social operant behavior in classrooms and studying the effects of the former on the latter. Figure 2 provides an example of how the monitoring procedures, after demonstration of the functionality of the three term contingency, may show effects of setting events on the mand-compliance-teacher attention operant. In this example, the rate of mands (antecedent) and the conditional probabilit y of the occurrence of teacher attention (consequence) following compliance are stable. When the suspected setting event is present, the conditional probability of compliance following a teacher mand drops (top panel). Additional observations of the behavior following occurrence of the setting event would be needed to establish the predictiveness of the setting event in modifying the functional relations among the three terms of the operant and the correlation effects on that operant.
Though orderly relations among all terms of the contingency and the setting event would be ideal, it is likely that changes in the frequency of the target behavior will sometimes be under the control of contingencies other than the ones being measured. For example, if aggression is the target behavior, we may measure attention as the consequence and a mand as the antecedent event. The setting event of interest may be waking up late. It is possible that the data will show stable occurrence of the setting event, stable mand-aggression and aggression-attention conditional probabilities, and yet still show an increase in frequency of aggression. In this case, it is clear that there are multiple sources of control over the aggressive behavior, and we must consider other contingencies in attempting to account for the occurrence of this aggression.
Academic behavior will be defined as completing worksheets from the Monitoring Basic Skills Progress measurement series (Fuchs, Hamlett, & Fuchs, 1990). This curriculum based measurement program is typically used to provide a sample of individual students' performance at their individually determined skill levels. The resulting data will be expressed in rate correct and error performance and corresponding antecedent stimuli will be the math problems, and the consequences will be determined individually. We will not be using this series to demonstrate student knowledge of math, but rather to establish a stable academic operant which will be examined for fluctuation in the presence of different setting events.
Monitoring Basic Skills Progress (Math) is a series of math worksheets that covers math problems from simple 1 digit addition and subtraction to multiple digit division and multiplication (including fractions and decimals), in progressively more difficult levels. Students complete worksheets in timed tests (2-5 minutes), and the teacher (or experimenter) scores each digit in the answer as a correct or an error in order to monitor student performance. Errors are further categorized by type of error, allowing the teacher to develop remediation programs.
We are interested in the stimulus - (or antecedent) response-consequence operants of mathematics performance. The monitoring program will allow us to establish a stable learning profile in which we can experimentally establish the operant through manipulation of the contingencies of reinforcement. Since the monitoring program is designed to demonstrate that certain written responses to the mathematical stimuli are under the control of those stimuli, manipulation of the antecedent stimuli through a series of ABAB designs should provide evidence that we have identified various operants. As in the preceding discussion of social interactions, after establishing that the behavior is under experimental control (i.e. systematic changes are observed during the experimental manipulation), we will monitor the subjects' math performance to observe any changes in performance that are related to changes in the setting events. Throughout the study we will monitor social interactions of the target subjects to observe chang es in the social behavior as a function of either the experimental or natural observation (baseline) phase of the studies.
One of the major problems in the literature is the lack of data on the three term contingencies associated with setting events in applied studies. The studies typically report the results, with reliability on targeted behavior (most often aberrant behavior) and little else. We believe that to analyze setting events we must develop reliable measures for all elements of the primary dependent variable (i.e. the three-term contingency) and the independent variables, the setting events. The project we have just begun proposes to first develop reliable setting events measures that cover a broad range of potential setting events and then assess their effects on social interactions and aggressive behavior using three term contingencies of social operant behaviors.
Belfiore, P.J., Browder, D.M., & Mace, F.C. (1993). Effects of community and center-based settings on the alertness of persons with profound mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 401-402.
Brown, W.H., Fox, J.J., & Brady, M.P. (1987). Effects of spatial density on 3- and 4-year-old children's socially directed behavior during freeplay: An investigation of a setting factor. Education and Treatment of Children, 10 (3), 247-258.
Carr, E.G., Yarbrough, S.C., & Langdon, N.A. (1997). Effects of idiosyncratic stimulus variables on functional analysis outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 673-686.
Chandler, L.K., Fowler, S.A., & Lubeck, R.C. (1992). An analysis of the effects of multiple setting events on the social behavior of preschool children with special needs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 249-263.
Colella, R.F., Ratey, J.J., & Glaser, A.I. (1992). Paramenstrual aggression in mentally retarded adult ameliorated by buspirone. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 22(4), 351-356.
Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., and Robbins, F.P. (1991). Functional assessment, curricular revision, and severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 387-397.
Durand, V.M. & Mapstone, E. (1998). Influence of "mood-inducing" music on challenging behavior. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 102(4), 367-378.
Fox, J. & Conroy, M. (1995). Setting events and behavioral disorders of children and youth: An interbehavioral field analysis for research and practice. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3(3), 130-140.
Fox, J., Conroy, M. Ambrose, S., Childress, P., Stroebe, M., Belcher, K, Jesse, C., Huff, A., Palmer, D., & Armstrong, R. (1998). Interobserver agreement and concurrent validity of a scatterplot technique for assessing the cant ext ual factors associated with young children's behavior problems. (Unpublished manuscript)
Fuchs, L., Hamlett, C., & Fuchs, D. (1990). Monitoring basic skills progress: Basic math. Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.
Greer, RD., Dorow, L., Williams, G., McCorkle, N., & Asnes, R (1991). Peer-mediated procedures to induce swallowing and food acceptance in young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 783-790.
Gunter P.L., Jack, S.L., Shores, R.E., Carrell, D.E., & Flowers, J. (1993). Lag sequential analysis as a tool for functional analysis of student disruptive behavior in classrooms. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1(3), 138-148.
Haring, T.G. & Kennedy, C.H. (1990). Contextual control of problem behavior in students with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 235-243.
Horner, R.D. (1980). The effects of an environmental "enrichment" program on the behavior of institutionalized profoundly retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 473-491.
Horner, R.H., Day, H.M., & Day, J.R. (1997). Using neutralizing routines to reduce problem behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 601-614.
Hutt, C. & Vaizey, M.J. (1966). Differential effects of group density on social behaviour. Nature, 209, 1371-1372.
Johnston, J.M. & Pennypacker, H.S. (1993). Strategies and tactics of behavioral research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kennedy, C.H. & Itkonen, T. (1993). Effects of setting events on the problem behavior of students with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 321-327.
Kennedy, C.H. & Meyer, K.A. (1996). Sleep deprivation, allergy symptoms, and negatively reinforced problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 133-135.
Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149-155.
Northrup, J., Fusilier, I., Swanson, V., Roane, H., & Borrero, J. (1997). An evaluation of methylphenidate as a potential establishing operation for some common classroom reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 615-625.
O'Reilly, M.F. (1995). Functional analysis and treatment of escape-maintained aggression correlated with sleep deprivation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 225-226.
O'Reilly, M.F. (1997). Functional analysis of episodic self-injury correlated with recurrent otitis media. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 165-167.
Rago, W.V. Jr., Parker, RM., & Cleland, C.C. (1978). Effect of increased space on the social behavior of institutionalized profoundly retarded male adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 82(6), 554-558.
Repp, A.C., Singh, N.N., Karsh, KG., Deitz, D.E.D. (1991). Ecobehavioural analysis of stereotypic and adaptive behaviours: Activities as setting events. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 35, 413-429.
Sanders, M.R., Dadds, M.R, & Bor, W. (1989). Contextual analysis of child oppositional and maternal aversive behaviors in families of conduct-disordered and nonproblem children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18(1), 72-83.
Shores, RE., Gunter, P.L., & Jack, S.L. (1993). Classroom management strategies: Are they setting events for coercion? Behavioral Disorders, 18(2), 92-102.
Shores, R.E., Jack, S.L., Gunter, P.L., Ellis, D.N., DeBriere, T.J., & Wehby, J.H. (1993). Classroom interactions of children with behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1(1), 27-39.
Shores, R.E., Wehby, J.H., & Jack, S.L. (1999). Analyzing behavior disorders in classrooms. In A.C. Repp & R.H. Homer (Eds.), Functional Analysis of Problem Behavior (Special Educator Series) 219-234.
Sidman, M. (1988). Tactics of scientific research. Boston: Authors Cooperative, Inc. (Reprinted from Tactics of scientific research, by M. Sidman, 1960, Basic Books, Inc.)
Skinner, B.F. (1991). The behavior of organisms. Acton, Massachusetts: Copley Publishing Group. (Reprinted from The behavior of organisms, by B.F. Skinner, .1938, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.)
Smith, R.G., Iwata, B.A., Goh, H., & Shore, B.A. (1995). Analysis of establishing operations for self-injury maintained by escape. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 515-535.
Tapp, J.T., Wehby, J.H., & Ellis, D.N. (1995). A multiple option observation system for experimental studies: MOOSES. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 27, 25-31.
Taylor, D.V., Rush, D., Hetrick, W.P., & Sandman, C.A. (1993). Self-injurious behavior within the menstrual cycle of women with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97(6), 659-664.
Touchette, P.E., MacDonald, R.F., & Langer, S.N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18,343-351.
Vollmer, T.R. & Iwata, B.A. (1991). Establishing operations and reinforcement effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 279-291.
Wacker, D.P., Harding, J., Cooper, L.J., Derby, KM., Peck, S., Asmus, J., Berg, W.K., & Brown, K.A. (1996). The effects of meal schedule and quantity on problematic behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 79-87.
Table 1 Inclusion of complete operational definitions of the four terms of the operant during intervention phases on studies reviewed. Author(s) Setting Event Antecedent Target Behavior Belfiore et al. X X (1993) Brown et al. X X (1987) Carr et al. X X X (1997) Chandler et al. X X (1992) Colella et al. X X (1992) Dunlap et al. X X X (1991) Durand et al. X X (1998) Greer et al. X X X Study 2 (1991) Haring & Kennedy X some phases X (1990) Horner et al. X X X (1997) Horner X some phases X (1980) Hutt & Vaizey X X (1966) Kennedy & Itkonen X X (1993) Kennedy & Meyer X some phases X (1996) Northup et al. X X X (1997) O'Reilly X X X (1995) O'Reilly X) X (1997) Rago et al. X Partial (1978) Repp et al. X X (1991) Sanders et al. X X (1989) Smith et al. X some phases X Studies 2, 3, 4 (1995) Taylor et al. X X (1993) Vollmer & Iwata X X X (1991) Wacker et al. X X (1960) Author(s) Cosequence Belfiore et al. (1993) Brown et al. (1987) Carr et al. X (1997) Chandler et al. (1992) Colella et al. (1992) Dunlap et al. X (1991) Durand et al. (1998) Greer et al. X Study 2 (1991) Haring & Kennedy X (1990) Horner et al. X (1997) Horner some phases (1980) Hutt & Vaizey (1966) Kennedy & Itkonen (1993) Kennedy & Meyer some phases (1996) Northup et al. X (1997) O'Reilly X (1995) O'Reilly some phases (1997) Rago et al. (1978) Repp et al. (1991) Sanders et al. (1989) Smith et al. X Studies 2, 3, 4 (1995) Taylor et al. (1993) Vollmer & Iwata X (1991) Wackner et al. X (1960) Appendix A Setting Events, Antecedents, Target Behaviors, and Consequences in Intervention Phases of Studies Reviewed Author(s) Setting Event Antecedent Belfione, Browder, Settings (high vs. low None & Mace (1993) stimulation) Brown. Fox, & Spatial density None Brady(l987) Care, Yarbrough, Presence of Instruction and lack & Langdon (1997) idiosyncratic social of attention or and physical stimuli Presentation of demand Chandler, Fowler, Teacher None & Lubeck (1992) presence/behavior Materials provided Peer group composition Amount of space Colella, Ratey, & Medication change None Glaser(1992) (onsetof menses) Dunlap, Kern- Instructional context Presentation of task Dunlap, Clarke, & Robbins (1991) Durand & Slow vs. fast beat None Mapstone (1998) music Expt. 2 Greer, Dorow, Peer mediation vs. peer Presentation of bite Williams, modeling MeCorkle, & Asnes (1991) Study 2 Haring & Context (instructional Instructional Kennedy (1990) vs. leisure) setting: Task presentation Leisure setting: None Horner, Day, & Neutralizing routing Instructional Day(1997) request or Physical interruption Horner, R. (1980) Enriched vs. austere Prompt environment (if necessary) Phases 5, 7, 9, & 10 only Author(s) Target Behavior Consequence Belfione, Browder, Inactivity, orienting, None & Mace (1993) pacing, and eye contact Brown. Fox, & Socially directed None Brady(l987) behavior Care, Yarbrough, SIB, aggression, Social attention & Langdon (1997) disruption Social approval or Escape from demand Chandler, Fowler, Peer directed activity None & Lubeck (1992) Teacher directed activity Colella, Ratey, & Aggression None Glaser(1992) Dunlap, Kern- Behavior problems Seclusionary time Dunlap, Clarke, out, restraint & Robbins (1991) Appropriate behavior Points/tokens Durand & Tantrums, SIB None Mapstone (1998) Facial expression Expt. 2 Greer, Dorow, # of accepted bites Praise Williams, # of refused bites Removal of bite MeCorkle, & from plate Asnes (1991) Study 2 Haring & Correct response Token; edibles Kennedy (1990) Problem behavior Removal of task Horner, Day, & Correct response Praise and edible Day(1997) Incorrect response Error correction, trial repetitions, edible, or ignoring Problem behavior Time out or edible Horner, R. (1980) Adaptive & maladptive Social praise and adult, child, and self- edibles directed behavior Phases 5, 7, 9, & 10 only Hutt & Vaizey Group density (1966) Kennedy & Itkonen (1993) Routine/car ride Waking up late Kennedy & Meyer (1996) Allergy symptoms sleep deprivation Northrup, Fusilier, Medication Swanson, Roane, & (Ritalin vs. placebo) Borrero (1997) O'Reilly (1995) Sleep deprivation ([less than]5 hrs/night) O'Reilly (1997) Otitis media (ear infection) Rago, Parker, & Cleland Playroom size (1978) Repp, Singh, Karsh, & Setting (leisure, Deitz (1991) prevocational, gym, academic, home living, lunch) Sanders, Dadds, Mother's ongoing & Bor (1989) activity Mother's location Persons present Smith, Iwata, Goh, & Task novelty, Sesssion Shore (1995) Study 2, duration, or Rate of 3, & 4 task trials Taylor, Rush, Hetrick, & Menstrual cycle Sandman (1993) Vollmer & Iwata (1991) Satiation & deprivation for food, music, & praise Wacker, Harding, Cooper, Meal schedule Derby, Peck, Asmus, Food quantity Berg, & Brown (1996) Hutt & Vaizey None (1966) Kennedy & Itkonen (1993) None Kennedy & Meyer (1996) a) attention: none b) demand: demand c) no attention: none d) recreation: none Northrup, Fusilier, Math worksheet Swanson, Roane, & Borrero (1997) O'Reilly (1995) Desnank O'Reilly (1997) None Rago, Parker, & Cleland None (1978) Repp, Singh, Karsh, & Task demands Deitz (1991) overt & covert Sanders, Dadds, None & Bor (1989) Smith, Iwata, Goh, & Demand Shore (1995) Study 2, 3, & 4 Taylor, Rush, Hetrick, & None Sandman (1993) Vollmer & Iwata (1991) Verbal prompt to start Wacker, Harding, Cooper, None Derby, Peck, Asmus, Berg, & Brown (1996) Hutt & Vaizey Time spent in None (1966) aggressive/destructive behaviors Time spent in appropriate social encounters Kennedy & Itkonen (1993) Problem behavior None Kennedy & Meyer (1996) Non-defined problem Social comments behavior Demand terminated None None Northrup, Fusilier, Completion of math Token coupons Swanson, Roane, & problems exchangeable for Borrero (1997) back-up reinforcers O'Reilly (1995) Aggression Attention or escape O'Reilly (1997) SIB Attention or escape Rago, Parker, & Cleland Aggression None (1978) Repp, Singh, Karsh, & Stereotypy None Deitz (1991) Adaptive behavior Sanders, Dadds, Oppositional child None & Bor (1989) behavior Aversive parent behavior Smith, Iwata, Goh, & SIB Turn away Attention Shore (1995) Study 2, DRO attention 3, & 4 Taylor, Rush, Hetrick, & SIB None Sandman (1993) Vollmer & Iwata (1991) Putting blocks in a Food & praise container Pressing a small pedal Music Wacker, Harding, Cooper, SIB Attention Derby, Peck, Asmus, Crying DRO attention Berg, & Brown (1996)
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Mahon, Karen L.; Shores, Richard E.; Buske, Carla J.|
|Publication:||Education & Treatment of Children|
|Date:||Aug 1, 1999|
|Previous Article:||Determination of Environmental Correlates of Disruptive Classroom Behavior: Integration of Functional Analysis Into Public School Assessment Process.|
|Next Article:||A Structural Analysis of School Violence and Disruption: Implications for Creating Safer Schools.|