University of North Carolina Wilmington.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2019 Jul;52(3):622-641. doi: 10.1002/jaba.562. Epub 2019 Apr 10.
We conducted functional analyses of the inappropriate mealtime behavior of 5 children diagnosed with feeding problems. Then, we compared the effects of differential and noncontingent reinforcement, and the relative effects of escape extinction with and without differential or noncontingent reinforcement, when escape extinction appeared necessary. Both reinforcement procedures were effective without escape extinction to treat food refusal for 1 child, but only differential reinforcement was effective without escape extinction to treat the child's liquid refusal. Escape extinction was necessary for 4 of 5 children. The addition of positive reinforcement resulted in beneficial effects (i.e., more stable acceptance, decreased inappropriate mealtime behavior or negative vocalizations) with 3 of 4 children. With escape extinction, differential reinforcement was more effective to treat food refusal for 2 children and noncontingent reinforcement was more effective for 1 child.
我们对 5 名被诊断为进食问题的儿童的不当进餐行为进行了功能分析。然后,我们比较了差异强化和非强化的效果,以及在需要时,有无差异强化或非强化的逃避消退的相对效果。在没有逃避消退的情况下,这两种强化程序都能有效治疗 1 名儿童的拒食,但只有差异强化能有效治疗该儿童的液体拒食。对于 5 名儿童中的 4 名,逃避消退是必要的。对于 4 名儿童中的 3 名,加入正强化会产生有益的效果(即更稳定的接受、减少不适当的进餐行为或负面发声)。在有逃避消退的情况下,对于 2 名儿童,差异强化更有效治疗食物拒食,而非强化对 1 名儿童更有效。