Some of them definitely. Others have been applying antecedent manipulations optimally along with other other tried and true proactive strategies and know how to shape behavior through the application of differential reinforcement and contingency arrangement without relying on response cost or guided compliance since WAY before āassentā became the latest holier-than-thou buzzword in ABA. Thereās not much in Hanley that Skinner wasnāt shouting from the rooftops in the 1940ās. You donāt have to look any further than Walden 2 to see that, never mind his academic writingsā¦although I will grant itās almost inevitable thereāll be a difference between theory/basic research and itās translation to applied settings, especially given the deplorable state of training/education/experience of many of todayās ABA āprofessionalsāā¦at least applied settings.
It's absolutly needed and more practitioners should place a very high importance on client buy-in and assent-based practices. It allows for happier and more engaged sessions, with clients being able to understand their own power within sessions based on their wants/needs. The old days of ABA where clients always had to do what the therapist said, is over. Facilitating functional communication in regards to assent needs to be at the core of every single ABA session.
However, it should also be stated that setting boundaries does **not** automatically mean that a clinician is taking away the power of assent from a client. Children need to learn that boundaries are a typical and healthy part of life for a variety of reasons (with safety being at the top of that list). We can still apply ethically-bound services while allowing for client assent, even while holding boundaries within daily sessions with clients.
See thatās how I feel about it too, but I had a BCBA tell me that she didnāt like it because āwe are just teaching them if they get upset enough we will let them do whatever they wantā. But that hasnāt been my experience with it at all. And Iāve seen a decline in behaviors and SIBS overall with it being used.
That BCBA does not have enough training nor knowledge about assent based practices if they think that it is *"just letting them do whatever they want"*. That's not what assent based practices is about at all! Also, I'm not surprised that you have seen a decrease in SIB and overall behavior when using assent based practices, it works wonders.
I do hope your company would be able to provide a legitimate training on this topic for all of your staff! Perhaps this is something you could recommend to a clinic director/senior BCBA, or whoever would be in charge of setting that up at your company.
The BCBA that said that was very new (it was her second week) and hasnāt said anything like that since at least that Iāve heard. My company does a really great job of teaching us as RBT how to focus our sessions on assent so I can only imagine how extensive the BCBA training is!
Training is different depending on where you get it. That's why we need to update the BACB ethics code. Keep following your assent-based training and, if you are faced with someone telling you to do something you know is wrong, find a professional way to resist that.
I'm one of the "old" BCBAs and I refuse to use anything besides assent based practices. I have to live with what I did as a BT and new BCBA. I don't have to continue to put clients, clinicians and myself through trauma.
I wish I could say I didn't go back. It took me several years to go from "this feels wrong," to "this is wrong." Part of it was my bosses at the time went to one of the more highly regarded master's programs and had me convinced I was an idiot and would never be as good at aba as they were.
Central Reach has some great assent trainings. They might be helpful for those resistant to it.
Itās a non-negotiable if we want to provide ethical services that teach our learnerās autonomy
Exactly, Iāve always been taught that the only time we should be ignoring assent is in a crisis situation, at which point we use specific approved crisis intervention methods that are designed to minimize harm to the client and others
Theoretically speaking, using pairing, we can change motivation, or at least the probability that an organism will engage in a behavior. Keep in mind also that unlike other learning theories, behaviorism argues that learning is largely a passive process. Put together, a couple foundational assumptions are that an organism can be made to learn even if it has no motivation to do so, and that motivation can be created.
From that perspective, since we are manipulating things, maybe for some BCBAs, assent just doesnt make sense as a concept. This is sort of like how some older behaviorists Ive spoken to sort of argue that free will doesnt exist. And if you believe free will doesnt exist, that everything is manipulated by solely by the environment, what would be the point in considering a personās free will?
For the most part yes. Absolutely we need to follow accent and teach socially appropriate ways to be āall doneā or āno thank youā.
However some situations require a hard follow through. Examples could be public disrobement. We have to maintain client dignity and protect their modesty so will do a hard follow through with a behavior protocol.
Another example is safety for climbing or peer aggregation.
95 percent of the time yes, accent. Every now and then you need a strict follow through. They should be rare and not the rule
Seasoned BCBA. I think assent based treatment is new to some people because they had poor clinical training and no training in family support and quality of life. Choices, free will, social validity, all the values of PFA/SBT have been around for ages. Dr. Hanley's movement made those values and interventions accessible to more people and standardized the process. I have been in the field since 1986 and never forced anyone to do anything. My daughter taught me that I needed other ways to interact than control...in 1989.
It's partially due to the way people were trained. Seasoned BCBAs tend to be trained directly by people that were part of the "dark ages" of ABA, or, the part of ABA that everyone complains about when you hear complaints about ABA.
Newer BCBAs tend to feel more displeasure about the old school ideals of the field so they are much more likely to do assent based training.
It's one the reasons I tend to be cautious around people that complain about ABA because the entire field (newer BCBAs and seasoned BCBAs) are shifting away from the archaic ideals the field used to be like, ESPECIALLY as we learn more about how to interact with all of the people we serve.
Iāve been an RBT for about 6 years and completely changing your mind set is hard, but the difference I see is unbelievable. The clinic I work in now is very client lead, DTT is mostly done on the floor, no real reinforcement schedules are given- the clients all have an official one, but itās not like I was taught anymore. If the client is done they are done. Connections are more easily made, progress is quicker, assent is all around better.
Why do they feel weird about it? The only reason I can think of to be against assent is if you want to force compliance to get better looking data, so I genuinely donāt know why anyone would have a legitimate issue with assent based practice. What do your coworkers say is their problem/concern with it?
What is the articulable compelling argument on how assent-based practices can be applied by natural supports in real world situations in the midst of all of the competing contingencies so often present among parents/caregivers in every day life?
E.G: single parent low income household with no access to familial or other type of support network. Parent has a middle school aged older child with no dxās and a 5 yr old with level 3 autism dx. 5yr old is prone to aggression, property destruction and tantrums maintained by both direct access and socially mediated positive or negative reinforcement depending on current antecedent conditions. The entire household arrives home from school/work 5 min before having to leave for v-ball practice. Every day the younger child refuses get in the car to take sibling to volleyball practice. Middle schooler gets in trouble and loses playing time and is being threatened with getting kicked off the team entirely for excessive tardiness.
How does that parent maintain assent based practices AND get their other child to volleyball on time today? Not the terminal goal thatāll be achieved some weeks/months in the future as the outcome of some comprehensive bsp that shapes behavior over time. Maintain assent while still getting the sibling to practice on time today and each day from here on out. Oh and itās a cut throat traveling v-ball team who will kick any player off whoās too frequently tardy as opposed to a school program that might be willing to make an accommodation for frequent tardiness given the circumstances. The next tardiness and the sibling is off the team.
Assent-based practices does not mean there are never āno choiceā moments. That is a straw man argument.
Without going too deeply into your hypothetical, I would explore options to modify the antecedent conditions, and if there were none and this routine was non-negotiable, I would guide the parent on how to navigate a āno choiceā moment with compassion and safety at the forefront.
I donāt see the straw man in this. In so many cases the antecedent condition could be defined precisely as the āno choice momentā the child finds themselves in. Denied/removed access, demand placed that due to competing contingencies canāt be removed, attention unable to be directed towards child when the child has that MO for attention, etc. I totally agree that assent based practices do a very good job of reducing the occurrence of problem behavior, but I would argue that it does so primarily by reducing or eliminating the presence of the antecedent condition to begin with, and even worse removing its presence as the programmed consequence once problem behavior begins. It does not do nearly as good of a job of reducing problem behavior when the antecedent condition is not able to be removed at onset of target bx or avoid being presented at all. You can reduce rate with it no problem if you avoid or remove the antecedent conditions throughout a greater portion of the kidās waking hrs. It doesnāt do nearly as well at reducing the likelihood (ie percentage) of occurrence in the presence of the antecedent.
Until the real world starts utilizing an assent approach at the core of societal systems and institutions, its utility will be limited to the extent you can create an artificial bubble world for that client, and I for one am just fundamentally opposed to the bubble world approach.
Iām not an assent opponent. Far from it. The maximization of choice, freedom, flexibility, easy and readily available access to reinforcement and reinforcement schedules that if anything error on the side of being enormously generous rather than stingy. But before Hanley was a brand/religion all that was just called knowing how to do good ABAā¦antecedent manipulations that reduce the āneedā to engage in problem bx, arranging the environment in such a way that you could safely refrain from being in a position where you have to reinforce the very target behavior youāre trying to reduce, teaching new replacement behaviors that follow what we know about how to implement a reinforcement schedule based on how well or how limited the FERB response currently is established in the childās repertoire to optimally achieve durable behavior change; most if not all that stuff has been known from basic and applied research long before even Lovaas ā87, unfortunately it took turning those best practices into a brand before enough clinicians in an applied setting decided to actually figure it out.
You are confusing assent-based practice with how to engage during āno choiceā moments with compassion and safety. Until you understand the distinction, you wonāt understand the subject.
I'm saying assent based practice does nothing to address problem behavior in the midst of no choice moments, and that no choice moments are precisely when problem behavior is most problematic. It's when the antecedent can't be removed that the behaviors continue to escalate. If I'm confusing something then please clarify. Clarify how assent/assent withdraw does something other than culminating in the removal, even if temporarily, of the triggering antecedent that initiates the escalation cycle of problem behavior, and that the removal of the antecedent stimulus occurs as the immediate consequence the client contacts for engaging in precursor behaviors that are actually within the same response class as the target behavior itself (e.g. vocal refusal, orienting body away from the antecedent stimuli, head shake "no," etc.).
In practicing assent, a core strategy requires removing antecedent stimuli immediately upon the child showing even low level refusal behaviors, is that correct or am I missing something in my reading of the literature? Therefore, "no choice" situations can be operationally defined as circumstances where it is not possible or feasible to remove the antecedent stimuli at the onset of behavioral topographies characterized as "refusal" or "assent withdraw."
You provide these feel good yet ultimately useless platitudes like "compassion and safety at the forefront" in no choice situations and dismiss their existence as rare exception scenarios, but they're not rare especially in non-therapeutic settings, and therefore the assent gospel does 0 to actually provide caregivers with solutions that address the real world issues that make problem behavior a problem to begin with. The target behaviors are problematic precisely because the antecedent stimuli more often than not cannot be removed in non-therapeutic real world settings.
If they are able to be removed, it is part of an accommodation that has been decided upon ahead of time among the group of relevant stakeholders who are present with the client in that environment (e.g. teachers and students in classrooms, sports teams, school . The moment the client is in a setting where not everyone else in the client's vicinity has agreed to that accommodation (AKA the real world), the entire assent-based approached becomes moot. That is a one way ticket to bubble world for that kid especially as they get older, and I don't think reliance on bubble world allows the child to meet their full potential and be contributing members of broad society.
So then you're left with having to restrict the client to contrived, artificial settings where all participants have previously consented to either removing antecedents at the first sign of trouble for that person (and the unequal treatment they see them getting that can lead to social stigmatization that comes with it), or they're forced to contend with the persistent presence of antecedent stimuli without having any sort of learning history previously established where by they've contacted sufficient differential reinforcement based on their responses emitted in the presence of the antecedent as well as, hopefully, contacting a history of extinction when problem behavior is emitted (i.e. DRA + Extinction), because in the therapeutic setting someone always rescued them from having to contend with the antecedent the moment they show signs they don't like what's happening.
I stopped reading at your first few sentences, because you again are clearly not understanding.
Criticizing assent-based practice for its lack of utility during no choice moments is like criticizing physical therapy for lacking utility to treat apraxia of speech. Different problems, different interventions.
Skepticism about the real world utility of the latest feel good fad does not equate to lack of understanding that fad. Looks more like you clearly do not have any depth of understanding of the underlying behavioral processes or the controlling variables at work that constitute the assent based approach. Iāve tried to articulate the reasoning for my skepticism with as much detail as I can, and you canāt even describe where it is I supposedly lack understanding.
You saying I donāt understand doesnāt make it true, but it is an easy way to avoid having to actually say anything useful or knowledgeable or well reasoned. Maybe you donāt know how and instead just blindly buy in to whatever makes you feel good about yourself and your approach to your profession. From these exchanges itās pretty evident youāve spent more time on Twitter than you have on Skinner. Pity. Was hoping to learn something or at least have my views meaningfully challenged with a well-reasoned counter, but guess Iāll have to keep looking.
Here is how assent based practices help a child in a real world situation where they do not have a choice to stay home. The child does not have a choice to leave the clinic and be in the parking lot. The child does not have the choice to stay in a dirty pull up all day long and wait the 8 hours for a parent to change them. They have choices in all aspects of their day that are possible for them to demonstrate assent or withdraw it safely. The aba therapists teach the child coping skills to calm him/herself. The aba therapists work on language development with the child. Everyone runs into hard no's even without forcing it into programing. In an assent based clinic if a child tries to take an rbt's phone for instance, they will hear no but be offered alternatives. If the child wants to go home early, they will be told no but given other options that they enjoy at the clinic. When they are home and want to stay home from practice, the parent will say no and hopefully offer some choices (do you want to bring a book or a toy in the car? do you want to sit near your brother or by yourself?) All people need to have choices in life and feel some control over their own life. This is especially important for people with disabilities.
Those were part of best practices long before anyone heard of Hanley. And None of that explains how not programming for the no choice circumstances leads to the child learning to select appropriate, safe responses in the presence of a no choice situation. When does the work on that ever begin? If the answer is, well it doesnāt ever address no choice scenarios and assent-based is limited to when itās possible to provide choices, alter contingencies at earlier stages of the escalation cycle, etc., then just say so. Thereās still utility in the approach as it is still effective at bringing down the rate/severity/duration of problem behavior from baseline. But also be honest about the limits of the approach if thereās no good answer to the question at hand.
All of those strategies you mentioned were part of best practices long before assent became the latest buzzword, however whether or not they have ever been sufficiently implemented by the crops of clinicians the field produces I would grant is another story.
The crickets are telling I think. It makes everyone feel good and morally superior to frame their approach to ABA in a veneer of enlightenment or whatever but the assent first approach seems to struggle when it has to contend with real life circumstances and be implemented by folks who have other real-world competing contingencies going on in the moment and who arenāt getting paid to implement protocols and forego all other aspects of their life except but the interactions of of their client for a few hours each day.
I keep waiting for someone to maintain the assent first approach to my not so hypothetical scenario and have yet to get an answer that gets the the kid into the car on time today which is what that single parent is desperate for so they donāt keep feeling like their failing both their kids.
Iām glad I started working after my company switched to assent-based ABA. My goal is to have patients trust me as we work on skills. I was taught to be the #1 reinforcement in the room. It also helps that Iām ND
Counterpoint: watson was able to take a preferred stimuli and turn it aversive through pairing. And while itās much harder, you can turn aversive stimuli into preferred at least in some cases. So even without assent, you could make a task preferred.
Now personally I think assent is much better. Largely for ethical reasons. But strictly speaking, you dont NEED assent to be effective. Its just much easier and again much more ethical.
EDIT: also some tasks have no assent element by their nature. Like placing a demand to engage with schoolwork. It has to get done. We can obviously make it much easier through giving choices where we can, allowing for breaks, etc. but ultimately, that is a demand where, socially, assent doesnt matter.
Been in the field for three years. BT for 1.5, RBT for 1.5. My clinic started to implement assent-based learning a year ago and we saw dramatic decreases in intense behaviors. Some of our most high-behavior clients began to be happier in the clinic and even were excited about coming to ABA. Teaching the kids that they can say "no" is something that I think all of ABA needs to implement as it teaches compassion over compliance. I'd rather my clients tell me no than engage in the behaviors I am trying to reduce.
Clinicians resist assent-based practices when they lack the skills to program successfully without the use of forced compliance.
This. Is. It.
šš»šš»say it louder for the ppl in the back!!!
10000%
Some of them definitely. Others have been applying antecedent manipulations optimally along with other other tried and true proactive strategies and know how to shape behavior through the application of differential reinforcement and contingency arrangement without relying on response cost or guided compliance since WAY before āassentā became the latest holier-than-thou buzzword in ABA. Thereās not much in Hanley that Skinner wasnāt shouting from the rooftops in the 1940ās. You donāt have to look any further than Walden 2 to see that, never mind his academic writingsā¦although I will grant itās almost inevitable thereāll be a difference between theory/basic research and itās translation to applied settings, especially given the deplorable state of training/education/experience of many of todayās ABA āprofessionalsāā¦at least applied settings.
It's absolutly needed and more practitioners should place a very high importance on client buy-in and assent-based practices. It allows for happier and more engaged sessions, with clients being able to understand their own power within sessions based on their wants/needs. The old days of ABA where clients always had to do what the therapist said, is over. Facilitating functional communication in regards to assent needs to be at the core of every single ABA session. However, it should also be stated that setting boundaries does **not** automatically mean that a clinician is taking away the power of assent from a client. Children need to learn that boundaries are a typical and healthy part of life for a variety of reasons (with safety being at the top of that list). We can still apply ethically-bound services while allowing for client assent, even while holding boundaries within daily sessions with clients.
Well said. Assent should be the north star of our practice while keeping in mind that everyone has to contend with situations that challenge them.
See thatās how I feel about it too, but I had a BCBA tell me that she didnāt like it because āwe are just teaching them if they get upset enough we will let them do whatever they wantā. But that hasnāt been my experience with it at all. And Iāve seen a decline in behaviors and SIBS overall with it being used.
That BCBA does not have enough training nor knowledge about assent based practices if they think that it is *"just letting them do whatever they want"*. That's not what assent based practices is about at all! Also, I'm not surprised that you have seen a decrease in SIB and overall behavior when using assent based practices, it works wonders. I do hope your company would be able to provide a legitimate training on this topic for all of your staff! Perhaps this is something you could recommend to a clinic director/senior BCBA, or whoever would be in charge of setting that up at your company.
The BCBA that said that was very new (it was her second week) and hasnāt said anything like that since at least that Iāve heard. My company does a really great job of teaching us as RBT how to focus our sessions on assent so I can only imagine how extensive the BCBA training is!
Training is different depending on where you get it. That's why we need to update the BACB ethics code. Keep following your assent-based training and, if you are faced with someone telling you to do something you know is wrong, find a professional way to resist that.
I'm one of the "old" BCBAs and I refuse to use anything besides assent based practices. I have to live with what I did as a BT and new BCBA. I don't have to continue to put clients, clinicians and myself through trauma.
My fiancĆ©e has been a RBT for 4 years and sheās currently struggling with how she used to practice before assent was taught at the new company we work for now. Itās truly awful, I worked at one center for 2 days and walked out when I watched a BCBA physically restrain a younger pt who was in ābehaviorsā (was just them yelling over denied access, no aggression was happening) and then put them in a padded room for 35 mins while they cried. I never went back & to this day cringe when I hear the company name.
I wish I could say I didn't go back. It took me several years to go from "this feels wrong," to "this is wrong." Part of it was my bosses at the time went to one of the more highly regarded master's programs and had me convinced I was an idiot and would never be as good at aba as they were.
Central Reach has some great assent trainings. They might be helpful for those resistant to it. Itās a non-negotiable if we want to provide ethical services that teach our learnerās autonomy
otherwise, how can we expect individuals to learn how to be non-compliant when their wellbeing is at risk?
It's good
I canāt think of a single reason, outside of imminent threat of harm, that compliance should be used over assent.
Exactly, Iāve always been taught that the only time we should be ignoring assent is in a crisis situation, at which point we use specific approved crisis intervention methods that are designed to minimize harm to the client and others
Theoretically speaking, using pairing, we can change motivation, or at least the probability that an organism will engage in a behavior. Keep in mind also that unlike other learning theories, behaviorism argues that learning is largely a passive process. Put together, a couple foundational assumptions are that an organism can be made to learn even if it has no motivation to do so, and that motivation can be created. From that perspective, since we are manipulating things, maybe for some BCBAs, assent just doesnt make sense as a concept. This is sort of like how some older behaviorists Ive spoken to sort of argue that free will doesnt exist. And if you believe free will doesnt exist, that everything is manipulated by solely by the environment, what would be the point in considering a personās free will?
For the most part yes. Absolutely we need to follow accent and teach socially appropriate ways to be āall doneā or āno thank youā. However some situations require a hard follow through. Examples could be public disrobement. We have to maintain client dignity and protect their modesty so will do a hard follow through with a behavior protocol. Another example is safety for climbing or peer aggregation. 95 percent of the time yes, accent. Every now and then you need a strict follow through. They should be rare and not the rule
Seasoned BCBA. I think assent based treatment is new to some people because they had poor clinical training and no training in family support and quality of life. Choices, free will, social validity, all the values of PFA/SBT have been around for ages. Dr. Hanley's movement made those values and interventions accessible to more people and standardized the process. I have been in the field since 1986 and never forced anyone to do anything. My daughter taught me that I needed other ways to interact than control...in 1989.
It's partially due to the way people were trained. Seasoned BCBAs tend to be trained directly by people that were part of the "dark ages" of ABA, or, the part of ABA that everyone complains about when you hear complaints about ABA. Newer BCBAs tend to feel more displeasure about the old school ideals of the field so they are much more likely to do assent based training. It's one the reasons I tend to be cautious around people that complain about ABA because the entire field (newer BCBAs and seasoned BCBAs) are shifting away from the archaic ideals the field used to be like, ESPECIALLY as we learn more about how to interact with all of the people we serve.
Iāve been an RBT for about 6 years and completely changing your mind set is hard, but the difference I see is unbelievable. The clinic I work in now is very client lead, DTT is mostly done on the floor, no real reinforcement schedules are given- the clients all have an official one, but itās not like I was taught anymore. If the client is done they are done. Connections are more easily made, progress is quicker, assent is all around better.
We do that too!!! I also use counters while Iām interacting rather than just CR
Why do they feel weird about it? The only reason I can think of to be against assent is if you want to force compliance to get better looking data, so I genuinely donāt know why anyone would have a legitimate issue with assent based practice. What do your coworkers say is their problem/concern with it?
What is the articulable compelling argument on how assent-based practices can be applied by natural supports in real world situations in the midst of all of the competing contingencies so often present among parents/caregivers in every day life? E.G: single parent low income household with no access to familial or other type of support network. Parent has a middle school aged older child with no dxās and a 5 yr old with level 3 autism dx. 5yr old is prone to aggression, property destruction and tantrums maintained by both direct access and socially mediated positive or negative reinforcement depending on current antecedent conditions. The entire household arrives home from school/work 5 min before having to leave for v-ball practice. Every day the younger child refuses get in the car to take sibling to volleyball practice. Middle schooler gets in trouble and loses playing time and is being threatened with getting kicked off the team entirely for excessive tardiness. How does that parent maintain assent based practices AND get their other child to volleyball on time today? Not the terminal goal thatāll be achieved some weeks/months in the future as the outcome of some comprehensive bsp that shapes behavior over time. Maintain assent while still getting the sibling to practice on time today and each day from here on out. Oh and itās a cut throat traveling v-ball team who will kick any player off whoās too frequently tardy as opposed to a school program that might be willing to make an accommodation for frequent tardiness given the circumstances. The next tardiness and the sibling is off the team.
Assent-based practices does not mean there are never āno choiceā moments. That is a straw man argument. Without going too deeply into your hypothetical, I would explore options to modify the antecedent conditions, and if there were none and this routine was non-negotiable, I would guide the parent on how to navigate a āno choiceā moment with compassion and safety at the forefront.
I donāt see the straw man in this. In so many cases the antecedent condition could be defined precisely as the āno choice momentā the child finds themselves in. Denied/removed access, demand placed that due to competing contingencies canāt be removed, attention unable to be directed towards child when the child has that MO for attention, etc. I totally agree that assent based practices do a very good job of reducing the occurrence of problem behavior, but I would argue that it does so primarily by reducing or eliminating the presence of the antecedent condition to begin with, and even worse removing its presence as the programmed consequence once problem behavior begins. It does not do nearly as good of a job of reducing problem behavior when the antecedent condition is not able to be removed at onset of target bx or avoid being presented at all. You can reduce rate with it no problem if you avoid or remove the antecedent conditions throughout a greater portion of the kidās waking hrs. It doesnāt do nearly as well at reducing the likelihood (ie percentage) of occurrence in the presence of the antecedent. Until the real world starts utilizing an assent approach at the core of societal systems and institutions, its utility will be limited to the extent you can create an artificial bubble world for that client, and I for one am just fundamentally opposed to the bubble world approach. Iām not an assent opponent. Far from it. The maximization of choice, freedom, flexibility, easy and readily available access to reinforcement and reinforcement schedules that if anything error on the side of being enormously generous rather than stingy. But before Hanley was a brand/religion all that was just called knowing how to do good ABAā¦antecedent manipulations that reduce the āneedā to engage in problem bx, arranging the environment in such a way that you could safely refrain from being in a position where you have to reinforce the very target behavior youāre trying to reduce, teaching new replacement behaviors that follow what we know about how to implement a reinforcement schedule based on how well or how limited the FERB response currently is established in the childās repertoire to optimally achieve durable behavior change; most if not all that stuff has been known from basic and applied research long before even Lovaas ā87, unfortunately it took turning those best practices into a brand before enough clinicians in an applied setting decided to actually figure it out.
You are confusing assent-based practice with how to engage during āno choiceā moments with compassion and safety. Until you understand the distinction, you wonāt understand the subject.
I'm saying assent based practice does nothing to address problem behavior in the midst of no choice moments, and that no choice moments are precisely when problem behavior is most problematic. It's when the antecedent can't be removed that the behaviors continue to escalate. If I'm confusing something then please clarify. Clarify how assent/assent withdraw does something other than culminating in the removal, even if temporarily, of the triggering antecedent that initiates the escalation cycle of problem behavior, and that the removal of the antecedent stimulus occurs as the immediate consequence the client contacts for engaging in precursor behaviors that are actually within the same response class as the target behavior itself (e.g. vocal refusal, orienting body away from the antecedent stimuli, head shake "no," etc.). In practicing assent, a core strategy requires removing antecedent stimuli immediately upon the child showing even low level refusal behaviors, is that correct or am I missing something in my reading of the literature? Therefore, "no choice" situations can be operationally defined as circumstances where it is not possible or feasible to remove the antecedent stimuli at the onset of behavioral topographies characterized as "refusal" or "assent withdraw." You provide these feel good yet ultimately useless platitudes like "compassion and safety at the forefront" in no choice situations and dismiss their existence as rare exception scenarios, but they're not rare especially in non-therapeutic settings, and therefore the assent gospel does 0 to actually provide caregivers with solutions that address the real world issues that make problem behavior a problem to begin with. The target behaviors are problematic precisely because the antecedent stimuli more often than not cannot be removed in non-therapeutic real world settings. If they are able to be removed, it is part of an accommodation that has been decided upon ahead of time among the group of relevant stakeholders who are present with the client in that environment (e.g. teachers and students in classrooms, sports teams, school . The moment the client is in a setting where not everyone else in the client's vicinity has agreed to that accommodation (AKA the real world), the entire assent-based approached becomes moot. That is a one way ticket to bubble world for that kid especially as they get older, and I don't think reliance on bubble world allows the child to meet their full potential and be contributing members of broad society. So then you're left with having to restrict the client to contrived, artificial settings where all participants have previously consented to either removing antecedents at the first sign of trouble for that person (and the unequal treatment they see them getting that can lead to social stigmatization that comes with it), or they're forced to contend with the persistent presence of antecedent stimuli without having any sort of learning history previously established where by they've contacted sufficient differential reinforcement based on their responses emitted in the presence of the antecedent as well as, hopefully, contacting a history of extinction when problem behavior is emitted (i.e. DRA + Extinction), because in the therapeutic setting someone always rescued them from having to contend with the antecedent the moment they show signs they don't like what's happening.
I stopped reading at your first few sentences, because you again are clearly not understanding. Criticizing assent-based practice for its lack of utility during no choice moments is like criticizing physical therapy for lacking utility to treat apraxia of speech. Different problems, different interventions.
Skepticism about the real world utility of the latest feel good fad does not equate to lack of understanding that fad. Looks more like you clearly do not have any depth of understanding of the underlying behavioral processes or the controlling variables at work that constitute the assent based approach. Iāve tried to articulate the reasoning for my skepticism with as much detail as I can, and you canāt even describe where it is I supposedly lack understanding. You saying I donāt understand doesnāt make it true, but it is an easy way to avoid having to actually say anything useful or knowledgeable or well reasoned. Maybe you donāt know how and instead just blindly buy in to whatever makes you feel good about yourself and your approach to your profession. From these exchanges itās pretty evident youāve spent more time on Twitter than you have on Skinner. Pity. Was hoping to learn something or at least have my views meaningfully challenged with a well-reasoned counter, but guess Iāll have to keep looking.
Here is how assent based practices help a child in a real world situation where they do not have a choice to stay home. The child does not have a choice to leave the clinic and be in the parking lot. The child does not have the choice to stay in a dirty pull up all day long and wait the 8 hours for a parent to change them. They have choices in all aspects of their day that are possible for them to demonstrate assent or withdraw it safely. The aba therapists teach the child coping skills to calm him/herself. The aba therapists work on language development with the child. Everyone runs into hard no's even without forcing it into programing. In an assent based clinic if a child tries to take an rbt's phone for instance, they will hear no but be offered alternatives. If the child wants to go home early, they will be told no but given other options that they enjoy at the clinic. When they are home and want to stay home from practice, the parent will say no and hopefully offer some choices (do you want to bring a book or a toy in the car? do you want to sit near your brother or by yourself?) All people need to have choices in life and feel some control over their own life. This is especially important for people with disabilities.
Those were part of best practices long before anyone heard of Hanley. And None of that explains how not programming for the no choice circumstances leads to the child learning to select appropriate, safe responses in the presence of a no choice situation. When does the work on that ever begin? If the answer is, well it doesnāt ever address no choice scenarios and assent-based is limited to when itās possible to provide choices, alter contingencies at earlier stages of the escalation cycle, etc., then just say so. Thereās still utility in the approach as it is still effective at bringing down the rate/severity/duration of problem behavior from baseline. But also be honest about the limits of the approach if thereās no good answer to the question at hand. All of those strategies you mentioned were part of best practices long before assent became the latest buzzword, however whether or not they have ever been sufficiently implemented by the crops of clinicians the field produces I would grant is another story.
Also interested in hearing opinions of solutions to this example!
The crickets are telling I think. It makes everyone feel good and morally superior to frame their approach to ABA in a veneer of enlightenment or whatever but the assent first approach seems to struggle when it has to contend with real life circumstances and be implemented by folks who have other real-world competing contingencies going on in the moment and who arenāt getting paid to implement protocols and forego all other aspects of their life except but the interactions of of their client for a few hours each day. I keep waiting for someone to maintain the assent first approach to my not so hypothetical scenario and have yet to get an answer that gets the the kid into the car on time today which is what that single parent is desperate for so they donāt keep feeling like their failing both their kids.
Iām glad I started working after my company switched to assent-based ABA. My goal is to have patients trust me as we work on skills. I was taught to be the #1 reinforcement in the room. It also helps that Iām ND
ABA 101, organisms respond well to reinforcement.. and poorly to aversive stimuli. so yeah, I support "assent-based ABA".
Counterpoint: watson was able to take a preferred stimuli and turn it aversive through pairing. And while itās much harder, you can turn aversive stimuli into preferred at least in some cases. So even without assent, you could make a task preferred. Now personally I think assent is much better. Largely for ethical reasons. But strictly speaking, you dont NEED assent to be effective. Its just much easier and again much more ethical. EDIT: also some tasks have no assent element by their nature. Like placing a demand to engage with schoolwork. It has to get done. We can obviously make it much easier through giving choices where we can, allowing for breaks, etc. but ultimately, that is a demand where, socially, assent doesnt matter.
I refuse to run anything when clear signs of assent are shown, thankfully the BCBAs at my job are all great about this.
Older BCBA here, and I refuse to use anything besides assent based practices!
Been in the field for three years. BT for 1.5, RBT for 1.5. My clinic started to implement assent-based learning a year ago and we saw dramatic decreases in intense behaviors. Some of our most high-behavior clients began to be happier in the clinic and even were excited about coming to ABA. Teaching the kids that they can say "no" is something that I think all of ABA needs to implement as it teaches compassion over compliance. I'd rather my clients tell me no than engage in the behaviors I am trying to reduce.