Schieltz Kelly M, Wacker David P, Harding Jay W, Berg Wendy K, Lee John F, Dalmau Yaniz C Padilla
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
J Dev Phys Disabil. 2010 Apr;22(2):131-147. doi: 10.1007/s10882-009-9181-5.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether destructive behavior and manding were maintained by the same social reinforcers. A summary of 10 participants that met criteria for differentiated functional analysis and mand analysis results were included in this study. All participants were preschool-aged children with developmental disabilities who engaged in destructive behavior. All procedures were conducted in the participants' homes by their parent with investigator coaching. Functional analyses (attention, escape, and tangible test conditions) of destructive behavior and manding were conducted within multielement designs and showed social functions. The functional analysis of destructive behavior and functional analysis of mands identified the same reinforcers for only 2 of the 10 participants. The analysis of mands identified a reinforcer that was not identified by the analysis of destructive behavior for 5 participants (over-identification), did not identify a reinforcer that was identified by the analysis of destructive behavior for 2 participants (under-identification), and identified mixed reinforcers (combination of over-identification and under-identification) for 1 participant. Results suggest that the analysis of destructive behavior and the analysis of mands identified different reinforcers and are not interchangeable.
本研究的目的是评估破坏性行为和要求是否由相同的社会强化物维持。本研究纳入了10名符合差异化功能分析标准的参与者总结以及要求分析结果。所有参与者均为有发育障碍的学龄前儿童,他们存在破坏性行为。所有程序均由家长在研究者的指导下在参与者家中进行。在多元素设计中对破坏性行为和要求进行了功能分析(注意力、逃避和实物测试条件),并显示出社会功能。破坏性行为的功能分析和要求的功能分析仅在10名参与者中的2名身上确定了相同的强化物。要求分析为5名参与者确定了破坏性行为分析未识别出的强化物(过度识别),2名参与者的要求分析未识别出破坏性行为分析所确定的强化物(识别不足),1名参与者的要求分析确定了混合强化物(过度识别和识别不足的组合)。结果表明,破坏性行为分析和要求分析确定了不同的强化物,且不可相互替代。