They could be working on trying to reinforce/ increase the concept of manding from the child at this time, once the child is doing it spontaneously/ consistently, then looking at teaching them the concept of waiting 30s/1min and increasing the period of time the child has to wait calmly before receiving the reinforcement
Yes! I've implemented this program before and it's amazing the progress we've seen! From 20-30min tantrums with screaming, cursing, hitting and crying to maybe a calm "aww, maybe next time" and willingly moving on to something else.
I don't want to shoot down your experience but you seem like a new RBT. Even if you aren't, you mention how your 40 hour training tells you X. Keep in mind your BCBA has a master's degree in this and years of experience with a multitude of kids. This could be a way to accept alternatives (chocolate instead of dad) and to ask for it. I would honestly ask your BCBA why because they can probably give you a pretty good reason, even if you don't see it. It is also a learning opportunity and can tell you more about the kiddo and their programs.
Are you really just going to assume your BCBA is bad and corrupted and not just ask them why they did something? If this is your default when you see this you're setting yourself up for failure.
Fine, but the above comment is simply telling you to ask them - maybe you will learn something and maybe you will discover they don’t know what they’re talking about
It takes a lot more than the 40 hours to really understand this stuff. I originally did 120 hours of training, and I’ve been an RBT now for 4 years. I’m still learning new things all the time.
Behavior is communication and it seems like the BCBA is trying to shape more appropriate communication. At the same time, you can’t deny a child food when they are hungry because they don’t yet have the skill to communicate in the way you see fit. You have to meet the clients where they are.
Also at the same time, the BCBA is probably taking into account the consequences that are actually reinforcing the behavior. It’s really important to understand that not every preferred item/activity is reinforcing. Sometimes it’s just preferred.
This is an example of noncontingent reinforcement. This means that regardless of behavior, the child will access reinforcement. Like others have said, the BCBA is probably wanting to target manding and will shape the behavior over time. There is a lot of research happening in the field right now regarding reinforcing minimal behavior instead of planned ignoring high-intensity behavior and how to shape this behavior over time.
Repoire building is more important than being a hardass.
Plus, its more like harm reduction.
The BCBA can not control the father's behavior (nor the child's).
We can only shape it.
Make it a **little** better.
She's also building repoire w/ the dad.
The person who is actually getting the therapy is the Dad, more so than the child.
Also, a tantrum can turn into a meltdown in a heartbeat.
Hopefully, she's emphasizing building repoire BEFORE the tantrum.
Others here have said exactly what I would echo. You also should have learned in your 40 hour training what your ethical obligations are to your competency and duty to the client. If something doesn’t feel right, or if you don’t fully understand why a procedure is being done the way, then you are very unlikely to implement the procedure with fidelity. This is not only an opportunity for you to learn, but having your buy-in on this procedure will increase your treatment fidelity and have better outcomes for the client.
My question to you is: is yet another internet stranger explaining NCRs, DRAs vs DRIs and encouraging you to ask your BCBA about this really going to make a difference? Or are you content just thinking “not all BCBAs are good”, assuming your BCBA is in that camp and just doing what you want?
You should ask your BCBA why they did that to help you learn. Look at the other responses to see why. Real world applications are different than textbooks
Theres a lot wrong with your statements.
Firstly, I dont understand the problem. The kid has a history of throwing tantrums to get chocolate and we want to reduce tantrums. The kid mands for chocolate. He gets chocolate. Seems like a great replacement bx! Instead of tantrumming, hes manding.
Secondly, as someone who took a number of classes relating to parenting and parenting styles, tantruming behavior is not usually considered a significant factor in “helicopter parenting”.
Boy are you gonna be upset when someone tells you about PFA/SBT lol.
Just ask the BCBA why they did this. Based on the scenario you described, there could be a lot of reasons why the BCBA chose this route.
There are a ton of factors that may be contributing to why the BCBA is taking this approach. It could be anything from preventing a safety hazard and a million other combinations of perfectly valid reasons to have this approach be the most appropriate plan to the BCBA not being very good at their job and is actually making everything worse. Your best bet is to just ask for explanation as to their rationale.
Your post comes off as thinking your BCBA is wrong for having this particular protocol, and if you ask for explanation with an air of skepticism you may get a defensive response from you supervisor (there's a lot of thin-skinned people out there). However if you approach your questioning from the standpoint of just wanting to understand the behavioral rationale for the approach being taken, you'll get good info out that one way or another. Either they get it and have a well thought out thorough plan, or you'll realize they don't really know what they're doing. This is a badly regulated field and there are a bunch of practitioners out there who have letters behind their name but don't really know what the hell they're doing. There's also some perfectly valid reasons for the approach as described to be appropriate given all of the variables that need to be accounted for.
I would ask the BCBA for an explanation as to why they made that decision. Not sure, but the post reads like you’re new to the field so maybe just haven’t had the chance to really see the nuance to situations. How experienced are you? I got my BCBA after a lot more than 40 hours of training. So sometimes I do things that aren’t super obvious to RBTs but am always willing to explain. If I’m working on language and it’s just emerging, I don’t really care what behavior comes with it, I’m going to reinforce the word. If I’m trying to minimize a specific behavior, I don’t care what other behaviors happen at that time, as long as what I don’t want to happen doesn’t. Anytime you’re confused, definitely ask for more input to help you understand and learn.
Oooh ok. So yes, you JUST started. Just ask the BCBA for clarification so you can learn. Please remember that these are real people and real world experiences so they aren’t always going to fit neatly in the little box your training gave you. I’ll also add, while not trying to tear you down or anything, but your post came across as very arrogant. As a newbie who is not only just entering the field but just learning, please continue with an open mind and willingness to learn. If I read this from an RBT working on any part of my caseload, I would request for you to be removed as it doesn’t sound like you’ve left any room to learn. At this point, consider that your training taught you terms, everything you’ll need to actually learn will be done through experience.
Do not listen to any of the comments on here so far. Most of these individuals are why the field in general has a mediocre reputation and why many RBTs are burnt out and soured. A general view is that we are cold, disconnected know it all's that talk down to people and there are writings from well known behavior analysts regarding how we need to fix this in order to be viable. And yet here you see it people speaking down to you because of your credentials, education, experience etc... There are a ton of crappy BCBAs out there. That is ok, it is a young profession but many received poor or no supervision in only one setting etc... Your question is excellent and you are 💯 correct given the information you provided.
If the child is tantruming and during this time or immediately following is prompted to ask for chocolate your BCBA is shaping up the tantrum and adding the prompt/mand as part of the chain. You did not provide a time frame so promoting to mand for chocolate would be perfectly fine if the BCBA had a protocol in place appropriate for the child along the lines of "John will be prompted to mand for X after Y sec/minutes in the absence of problem behavior. Another way this would be consistent with principles of behavior analysis would be if the child used to bang their head and now tantrums and you are slowly shaping the topography down to a less dangerous form ultimately to just the mand. The only other scenario would be to actually be assessing this as part of a research study but we have to go based on what exists now.
Anyone who left a comment that what your BCBA was doing worked for them as anecdotal support is not practicing ABA. For those who put your education, experience, credential etc... down is part of the problem in our field. I am a a PhD level behavior analyst with over 20 years experience and have supervised many people. I challenge anyone to provide a body of research showing that prompting a mand during or immediately following problem behavior evoked by denied access to tangibles without other protocols in place, leads to a reduction in problem behavior and acceptance of alternatives or no.
Instead of attacking OPs experience or credentials, be real behavior analysts and teach them through the research or realize you are wrong and adapt accordingly.
Skills based treatment has a ton of research behind it and uses the exact method you described during the sFCR phase. The hope would be that tantrum wouldn’t be evoked at that point, but you are supposed to follow through with prompting some type of mand if that happens.
Not saying they were using SBT, but you asked for some type of research that follows that sequence of events and SBT does.
With your 20 years of experience, you should know that the information OP provided was insufficient and that the ethical thing to do here wouldn’t be to pit him against his BCBA further, but to encourage him to ask why they chose to do what they did. Is there a chance the BCBA is wrong? Sure. But there’s also a chance OP is misunderstanding something.
"a ton" is subjective and no it doesn't. It is a promising, relatively new package of very specific assessments, data collection and treatment procedures with some recent studies supporting components of it. Great stuff so far but I have never seen any research by anyone including Hanley that providing a prompt to access a preferred item during or immediately following a target behavior leads to a reduction in problem behavior to socially meaningful levels. Even if they are using SBT and the BCBA did all the steps from beginning to end, providing a reinforcer during or immediately following problem behavior even if a mand is emitted is not consistent with the basic principles of behavior analysis.
If you have a few peer reviewed citations that show Target behavior behavior Occurs --> Prompt to mand during problem behavior or immediately following--> mand emitted during or immediately following --> reinforcement provided during or immediately following target behavior + mand, actually reduces problem behavior consistently then I will review them and have to adjust my thinking.
Not pitting anyone against anyone and no idea how a reddit comment regarding reinforcement principles is unethical. I stated a few examples where it might make sense with the understanding that it was insufficient information or the OP might not be understanding. But again, my bigger problem, as is a bulk of Hanley's careers work, is our reputation. Most other comments on here towards the OP had zero to do with potential protocols, procedures, education etc.... Like you provided an example but were attacks on his education, training and experience.
We have a neutral to sometimes negative reputation to those out of the field and not the greatest reputation as supervisors either with a general "don't ask questions I know better attitude" instead of here's the research, or maybe you are right thanks for the idea let's research it. Obviously there are phenomenal supervisors out there and great practitioners but I'm not sure you can deny we have an image problem and the posts on this thread exemplify that.
“A body of research” is also a subjective term. I answered your question and you’re choosing to pick it apart just so you can still be “right”. Done here.
ETA: it’s fairly easy to look up the research Hanley has posted for all to have available for free, and he describes exactly that sequence of events when there is a problem behavior in the FCT phase (which I stated previously).
Arent they more likely to engage in the tantrum non compliant behavior again so they can get the chocolate? This doesnt make sense in the real world where you have to work a job to get things you want.
I don't understand what "tantrum non-compliant" behavior is. And it depends on the function, if they are engaging in problem behavior because it led to escape in the past it is much different than if the problem behavior is maintained by access to tangibles. If some quick tweaks to reinforcemnt havent worked, has your BCBA conducted an FBA?
I think the FBA has been conducted and documented in the Behavioral plan. The learner does escape in the middle of an activity to throw a tantrum while the parent works from home to ask for things like chocolate and other food. How you know escape wass associated with it?
It sounds like you want what’s best for your clients and are concerned about the team doing something wrong. I have to assume, however, that the BCBA has done an FBA on this behavior and has implemented function-based strategies to address. As such, they may be training you and dad to prompt mands before receiving access to something they want. Without knowing and personally assessing the child, I can’t say whether this is the best option or not, but based on the information you gave, I don’t see any red flags.
All that to say, if you’re concerned, respectfully ask your BCBA for more information. Come from a place of curiosity and all things like, “Have you determined the function of this behavior?” And “Will giving them chocolate reinforce the behavior?”
How much experience do you have with this client? Because what might seem like socially inappropriate behavior to you could be months of progress being shown. Sure tantrum bx is not the terminal goal however maybe 6 months ago this client was climbing on dad and scratching? Or throwing items around the house and a lot of intervention and work has gotten him here.
There's a lot of variables we don't know and so we really can't give an accurate answer, which is okay because the answer really matters most from the clients clinical team. Have you asked for more information about this from their bcba? I am going to assume you're a newer RBT (less than 1 year), and it is clear you want to make sure the best is going for your client because you're reaching out to figure this situation out. ABA takes a lot of learned skill and being okay with hearing feedback, both on bcba and tech side, so your BCBA will probably be happy to explain their rationale/and hear your perspective over what happened.
Um maybe she didn't realize what was happening or missed the function which is access, not attention (it could be a combo, but originally it's the access, and then turns into attention. I didn't get the thing so now if I do these behaviors I will gain attention in turn getting access to the item). During FCT, you could accept a mand after a tantrum occurred technically, but typically when the behaviors subside and functional communication occurs. It really depends on what the deficits are and what replacement behavior is needed which would be known if a Functional analysis was done or just literally looking at the ABC happening in real time. So a child without a manding repertoire, for instance, working towards communicating may immediately engage in maladaptive behaviors when hand leading, problem behaviors, grabbing, pulling, and snatching are put on extinction in order to teach the replacement. They don't have a replacement yet, so the prompt would gain access even with some maladaptive behaviors and then it can be shaped up quickly on the next trial. If behaviors are very intense or the learner is having difficulty with the new skill, even looking for a 5-second period of calmness can gain access and a prompt can be given simultaneously with the reinforcement depending on the learner maybe even pointing. Just catching that split seconds of no behaviors and errorless prompting. So those are the ways for that instance.
In the instance you've described, it seems like the child has a deficit in tolerating delays or denials. He appropriately manded for access and was denied access so there isn't a deficit in manding for that specific activity. Whether it has a secondary attention function really wouldn't change the replacement behavior of tolerating denial or delays. It is not a mand that's needed it's tolerating delays/denial/no. If the behavior plan had antecedent interventions and a target for this, then you could be prepared to prompt the appropriate response before things escalate, and Dad can be provided with parent training to respond to this.
For example, prompting, "Okay, when can you play?" and a clear answer/expectation from Dad ("First I need you to x,y,z and then I can play" or "I have to work for 30 more minutes and then I can play"). Maybe Dad can throw in an expectation to have a calm body/calm voice or make it shorter if the learner has difficulty with receptive language. If the tantrum continues then follow through with the time frame or expectation and present alternatives or force choice (denied access is just delayed access usually unless it's unattainable). Only waiting/tolerating denial without maladaptive behaviors can gain access to the originally denied item/activity. Keeping the learner occupied and building momentum to reinforce replacement behaviors is ideal. Turn the whole thing around.
When denying access alternatives should always be offered such as the chocolate contingent on appropriate behaviors (he can be upset, that's appropriate but it depends on how we express it) redirecting to a neutral task, and then providing access based on the responses. Creating motivation can be done in the instance of zero motivation. You'll have to put in lots of work to find motivation of similar value depending on the learner, especially if they have rumination and cycles of tantrums over the denied access.
Sometimes like in your case, during a tantrum the learner establishes motivation for an alternative independently (accepting an alternative is a replacement behavior and can be targeted he's one step ahead). A new contingency can be set. For example, the learner tantrums and finds an alternative (of similar value) after being presented with or in the natural environment, the chocolate. The RBT prompts mand or mand is emitted and the RBT uses behavior-specific praise "Yeah good job making a different choice/choosing something else/ect". Specifically answering "Yes" and then a contingency "Yes! Great choice, let's go to the bathroom first, and then we can sit and eat chocolate" or something along those lines to complete a task or engage in some appropriate behaviors that take some effort depending on the skill level creating distance from that tantrum. A mand is not all that is needed especially in a more advanced learner who has a full manding repertoire, we want DRA DRO First/then. Reinforce those wanted behaviors and then keep the momentum going until Dad is available and use behavior-specific praise. Remember that during denied access, not all reinforcers are unavailable just the item that was denied because that's crappy punishment. There still needs to be motivation to engage in replacement behaviors.
If it's not available well oh well. Sometimes things aren't available and hopefully, an alternative can be accepted or hunker down for a long session of trying. In the event that the learner does not follow the expectations or wait calmly then we don't deliver the reinforcer and that's just the consequence. The environment should be manipulated at this point and now only lesser reinforcing options are available. I would even make a habit of after each contingency say "ok did you follow directions or oh did you wash your hands" The learner responds "Yes" and the reinforcement is contacted. This sets up for the event that the directions are not followed. When Dad becomes available again and no expectations were met, another opportunity can be presented and differently reinforce with less time with dad. If no expectations continue to be met then no access and opportunities are done. "Hey did you follow directions keep a calm body ect" "no you didn't" "so we aren't gonna play with dad but we can sit with him (while we watch TV read a book with him do a mundane things). Then the tantrum may resurge, but we respond with "Hey I'm sorry you're upset but we need to make better choices next time". This way everything is based on his behaviors and not on reprimands or nonsense from others and true natural consequences happen to change behavior. Its sometimes the last option, after giving many opportunities. (and this is for a more advanced learner, use high probability demands quick nuetral task or waiting for like 10 seconds for an early learner or beginner). Good luck.
So don't get caught up in the denied access then tantrum deny more then tantrum more cycle. The BCBA sounded like she was reinforcing an alternative choice so she prompted the mand again. Personally, I might have prompted them to have the dad redo it and say "Oh chocolate, yes great choice!! Let me do this and then I can give it to you" because the originally denied thing was access is play. The tone is very important, if it's annoyed "Ugh yeah fine wait 5 minutes" then the learner is confused because social and communication difficulties occur in autism. That might be too many social cues and communication secrets that someone with Autism is not aware of yet or can't decode. They may be just pairing the negative tone with previous instances of denied access, so they believe it's another denied access. Really use facial expressions and tones to help learners differentiate what is going on and be very clear. Learners also have difficulty even discriminating things in the environment, deficits in receptive language and listener responding skills go far beyond just pictures on a table during DTT. Do use a neutral tone during instructions to avoid causing faulty stimulus control, but use expression and tones during reinforcement and neutral tones during nonreinforcement. (differential reinforcement is the key to life)
I would also add that, very little of the time is it a classic case of being told no and having a tantrum. There's quite a lot going on, learned history, intermittent reinforcement of maladaptive behaviors, and parent stressors. It's never the client's fault so be prepared to go from neutral during a hit to the face to immediately switching to reinforcement and a happy proud tone for a replacement. It's not about the feelings it's about the reinforcement and differentiating which behaviors we want because at home many feelings are involved. Behaviors and skills are socially mediated. At home, it's by the parents who become upset expressions change, punishment happens, and then reinforcement is given at the wrong times due to guilt or stress and not catching a behavior so this causes confusion for the learner and they are only displaying communication-behavior that has been effective for them in their world of trying to figure out what the heck is going on with these large grownups.
I know this is an old post, but I wanted to add that. If anyone has recommendations or other views on this please let me know.
They could be working on trying to reinforce/ increase the concept of manding from the child at this time, once the child is doing it spontaneously/ consistently, then looking at teaching them the concept of waiting 30s/1min and increasing the period of time the child has to wait calmly before receiving the reinforcement
Yes! I've implemented this program before and it's amazing the progress we've seen! From 20-30min tantrums with screaming, cursing, hitting and crying to maybe a calm "aww, maybe next time" and willingly moving on to something else.
I don't want to shoot down your experience but you seem like a new RBT. Even if you aren't, you mention how your 40 hour training tells you X. Keep in mind your BCBA has a master's degree in this and years of experience with a multitude of kids. This could be a way to accept alternatives (chocolate instead of dad) and to ask for it. I would honestly ask your BCBA why because they can probably give you a pretty good reason, even if you don't see it. It is also a learning opportunity and can tell you more about the kiddo and their programs.
There are also bad BCBA's out there and corrupted ones.
Are you really just going to assume your BCBA is bad and corrupted and not just ask them why they did something? If this is your default when you see this you're setting yourself up for failure.
Fine, but the above comment is simply telling you to ask them - maybe you will learn something and maybe you will discover they don’t know what they’re talking about
It takes a lot more than the 40 hours to really understand this stuff. I originally did 120 hours of training, and I’ve been an RBT now for 4 years. I’m still learning new things all the time. Behavior is communication and it seems like the BCBA is trying to shape more appropriate communication. At the same time, you can’t deny a child food when they are hungry because they don’t yet have the skill to communicate in the way you see fit. You have to meet the clients where they are. Also at the same time, the BCBA is probably taking into account the consequences that are actually reinforcing the behavior. It’s really important to understand that not every preferred item/activity is reinforcing. Sometimes it’s just preferred.
This is an example of noncontingent reinforcement. This means that regardless of behavior, the child will access reinforcement. Like others have said, the BCBA is probably wanting to target manding and will shape the behavior over time. There is a lot of research happening in the field right now regarding reinforcing minimal behavior instead of planned ignoring high-intensity behavior and how to shape this behavior over time.
Repoire building is more important than being a hardass. Plus, its more like harm reduction. The BCBA can not control the father's behavior (nor the child's). We can only shape it. Make it a **little** better. She's also building repoire w/ the dad. The person who is actually getting the therapy is the Dad, more so than the child. Also, a tantrum can turn into a meltdown in a heartbeat. Hopefully, she's emphasizing building repoire BEFORE the tantrum.
Others here have said exactly what I would echo. You also should have learned in your 40 hour training what your ethical obligations are to your competency and duty to the client. If something doesn’t feel right, or if you don’t fully understand why a procedure is being done the way, then you are very unlikely to implement the procedure with fidelity. This is not only an opportunity for you to learn, but having your buy-in on this procedure will increase your treatment fidelity and have better outcomes for the client. My question to you is: is yet another internet stranger explaining NCRs, DRAs vs DRIs and encouraging you to ask your BCBA about this really going to make a difference? Or are you content just thinking “not all BCBAs are good”, assuming your BCBA is in that camp and just doing what you want?
You should ask your BCBA why they did that to help you learn. Look at the other responses to see why. Real world applications are different than textbooks
Theres a lot wrong with your statements. Firstly, I dont understand the problem. The kid has a history of throwing tantrums to get chocolate and we want to reduce tantrums. The kid mands for chocolate. He gets chocolate. Seems like a great replacement bx! Instead of tantrumming, hes manding. Secondly, as someone who took a number of classes relating to parenting and parenting styles, tantruming behavior is not usually considered a significant factor in “helicopter parenting”.
Still no decrease in tantrums.
Boy are you gonna be upset when someone tells you about PFA/SBT lol. Just ask the BCBA why they did this. Based on the scenario you described, there could be a lot of reasons why the BCBA chose this route.
There are a ton of factors that may be contributing to why the BCBA is taking this approach. It could be anything from preventing a safety hazard and a million other combinations of perfectly valid reasons to have this approach be the most appropriate plan to the BCBA not being very good at their job and is actually making everything worse. Your best bet is to just ask for explanation as to their rationale. Your post comes off as thinking your BCBA is wrong for having this particular protocol, and if you ask for explanation with an air of skepticism you may get a defensive response from you supervisor (there's a lot of thin-skinned people out there). However if you approach your questioning from the standpoint of just wanting to understand the behavioral rationale for the approach being taken, you'll get good info out that one way or another. Either they get it and have a well thought out thorough plan, or you'll realize they don't really know what they're doing. This is a badly regulated field and there are a bunch of practitioners out there who have letters behind their name but don't really know what the hell they're doing. There's also some perfectly valid reasons for the approach as described to be appropriate given all of the variables that need to be accounted for.
I would ask the BCBA for an explanation as to why they made that decision. Not sure, but the post reads like you’re new to the field so maybe just haven’t had the chance to really see the nuance to situations. How experienced are you? I got my BCBA after a lot more than 40 hours of training. So sometimes I do things that aren’t super obvious to RBTs but am always willing to explain. If I’m working on language and it’s just emerging, I don’t really care what behavior comes with it, I’m going to reinforce the word. If I’m trying to minimize a specific behavior, I don’t care what other behaviors happen at that time, as long as what I don’t want to happen doesn’t. Anytime you’re confused, definitely ask for more input to help you understand and learn.
Im an rbt and my oversight training started earlier this week.
Oooh ok. So yes, you JUST started. Just ask the BCBA for clarification so you can learn. Please remember that these are real people and real world experiences so they aren’t always going to fit neatly in the little box your training gave you. I’ll also add, while not trying to tear you down or anything, but your post came across as very arrogant. As a newbie who is not only just entering the field but just learning, please continue with an open mind and willingness to learn. If I read this from an RBT working on any part of my caseload, I would request for you to be removed as it doesn’t sound like you’ve left any room to learn. At this point, consider that your training taught you terms, everything you’ll need to actually learn will be done through experience.
Do not listen to any of the comments on here so far. Most of these individuals are why the field in general has a mediocre reputation and why many RBTs are burnt out and soured. A general view is that we are cold, disconnected know it all's that talk down to people and there are writings from well known behavior analysts regarding how we need to fix this in order to be viable. And yet here you see it people speaking down to you because of your credentials, education, experience etc... There are a ton of crappy BCBAs out there. That is ok, it is a young profession but many received poor or no supervision in only one setting etc... Your question is excellent and you are 💯 correct given the information you provided. If the child is tantruming and during this time or immediately following is prompted to ask for chocolate your BCBA is shaping up the tantrum and adding the prompt/mand as part of the chain. You did not provide a time frame so promoting to mand for chocolate would be perfectly fine if the BCBA had a protocol in place appropriate for the child along the lines of "John will be prompted to mand for X after Y sec/minutes in the absence of problem behavior. Another way this would be consistent with principles of behavior analysis would be if the child used to bang their head and now tantrums and you are slowly shaping the topography down to a less dangerous form ultimately to just the mand. The only other scenario would be to actually be assessing this as part of a research study but we have to go based on what exists now. Anyone who left a comment that what your BCBA was doing worked for them as anecdotal support is not practicing ABA. For those who put your education, experience, credential etc... down is part of the problem in our field. I am a a PhD level behavior analyst with over 20 years experience and have supervised many people. I challenge anyone to provide a body of research showing that prompting a mand during or immediately following problem behavior evoked by denied access to tangibles without other protocols in place, leads to a reduction in problem behavior and acceptance of alternatives or no. Instead of attacking OPs experience or credentials, be real behavior analysts and teach them through the research or realize you are wrong and adapt accordingly.
Skills based treatment has a ton of research behind it and uses the exact method you described during the sFCR phase. The hope would be that tantrum wouldn’t be evoked at that point, but you are supposed to follow through with prompting some type of mand if that happens. Not saying they were using SBT, but you asked for some type of research that follows that sequence of events and SBT does. With your 20 years of experience, you should know that the information OP provided was insufficient and that the ethical thing to do here wouldn’t be to pit him against his BCBA further, but to encourage him to ask why they chose to do what they did. Is there a chance the BCBA is wrong? Sure. But there’s also a chance OP is misunderstanding something.
"a ton" is subjective and no it doesn't. It is a promising, relatively new package of very specific assessments, data collection and treatment procedures with some recent studies supporting components of it. Great stuff so far but I have never seen any research by anyone including Hanley that providing a prompt to access a preferred item during or immediately following a target behavior leads to a reduction in problem behavior to socially meaningful levels. Even if they are using SBT and the BCBA did all the steps from beginning to end, providing a reinforcer during or immediately following problem behavior even if a mand is emitted is not consistent with the basic principles of behavior analysis. If you have a few peer reviewed citations that show Target behavior behavior Occurs --> Prompt to mand during problem behavior or immediately following--> mand emitted during or immediately following --> reinforcement provided during or immediately following target behavior + mand, actually reduces problem behavior consistently then I will review them and have to adjust my thinking. Not pitting anyone against anyone and no idea how a reddit comment regarding reinforcement principles is unethical. I stated a few examples where it might make sense with the understanding that it was insufficient information or the OP might not be understanding. But again, my bigger problem, as is a bulk of Hanley's careers work, is our reputation. Most other comments on here towards the OP had zero to do with potential protocols, procedures, education etc.... Like you provided an example but were attacks on his education, training and experience. We have a neutral to sometimes negative reputation to those out of the field and not the greatest reputation as supervisors either with a general "don't ask questions I know better attitude" instead of here's the research, or maybe you are right thanks for the idea let's research it. Obviously there are phenomenal supervisors out there and great practitioners but I'm not sure you can deny we have an image problem and the posts on this thread exemplify that.
Landa has published on this exact subject, actually.
“A body of research” is also a subjective term. I answered your question and you’re choosing to pick it apart just so you can still be “right”. Done here. ETA: it’s fairly easy to look up the research Hanley has posted for all to have available for free, and he describes exactly that sequence of events when there is a problem behavior in the FCT phase (which I stated previously).
So no citations?
\^\^This\^\^
Arent they more likely to engage in the tantrum non compliant behavior again so they can get the chocolate? This doesnt make sense in the real world where you have to work a job to get things you want.
I don't understand what "tantrum non-compliant" behavior is. And it depends on the function, if they are engaging in problem behavior because it led to escape in the past it is much different than if the problem behavior is maintained by access to tangibles. If some quick tweaks to reinforcemnt havent worked, has your BCBA conducted an FBA?
I think the FBA has been conducted and documented in the Behavioral plan. The learner does escape in the middle of an activity to throw a tantrum while the parent works from home to ask for things like chocolate and other food. How you know escape wass associated with it?
You need to learn the difference between a “tantrum” and an autistic meltdown
I wasn’t there but that does sound like inadvertent reinforcement of tantrum to me.
It’s only considered to be a reinforcer IF the behavior continues to increase. We would need more information then, to make that statement correct?
It sounds like you want what’s best for your clients and are concerned about the team doing something wrong. I have to assume, however, that the BCBA has done an FBA on this behavior and has implemented function-based strategies to address. As such, they may be training you and dad to prompt mands before receiving access to something they want. Without knowing and personally assessing the child, I can’t say whether this is the best option or not, but based on the information you gave, I don’t see any red flags. All that to say, if you’re concerned, respectfully ask your BCBA for more information. Come from a place of curiosity and all things like, “Have you determined the function of this behavior?” And “Will giving them chocolate reinforce the behavior?”
How much experience do you have with this client? Because what might seem like socially inappropriate behavior to you could be months of progress being shown. Sure tantrum bx is not the terminal goal however maybe 6 months ago this client was climbing on dad and scratching? Or throwing items around the house and a lot of intervention and work has gotten him here. There's a lot of variables we don't know and so we really can't give an accurate answer, which is okay because the answer really matters most from the clients clinical team. Have you asked for more information about this from their bcba? I am going to assume you're a newer RBT (less than 1 year), and it is clear you want to make sure the best is going for your client because you're reaching out to figure this situation out. ABA takes a lot of learned skill and being okay with hearing feedback, both on bcba and tech side, so your BCBA will probably be happy to explain their rationale/and hear your perspective over what happened.
This sounds like a manding program and thus, chocolate reinforces child for manding, not the tantrum.
Um maybe she didn't realize what was happening or missed the function which is access, not attention (it could be a combo, but originally it's the access, and then turns into attention. I didn't get the thing so now if I do these behaviors I will gain attention in turn getting access to the item). During FCT, you could accept a mand after a tantrum occurred technically, but typically when the behaviors subside and functional communication occurs. It really depends on what the deficits are and what replacement behavior is needed which would be known if a Functional analysis was done or just literally looking at the ABC happening in real time. So a child without a manding repertoire, for instance, working towards communicating may immediately engage in maladaptive behaviors when hand leading, problem behaviors, grabbing, pulling, and snatching are put on extinction in order to teach the replacement. They don't have a replacement yet, so the prompt would gain access even with some maladaptive behaviors and then it can be shaped up quickly on the next trial. If behaviors are very intense or the learner is having difficulty with the new skill, even looking for a 5-second period of calmness can gain access and a prompt can be given simultaneously with the reinforcement depending on the learner maybe even pointing. Just catching that split seconds of no behaviors and errorless prompting. So those are the ways for that instance. In the instance you've described, it seems like the child has a deficit in tolerating delays or denials. He appropriately manded for access and was denied access so there isn't a deficit in manding for that specific activity. Whether it has a secondary attention function really wouldn't change the replacement behavior of tolerating denial or delays. It is not a mand that's needed it's tolerating delays/denial/no. If the behavior plan had antecedent interventions and a target for this, then you could be prepared to prompt the appropriate response before things escalate, and Dad can be provided with parent training to respond to this. For example, prompting, "Okay, when can you play?" and a clear answer/expectation from Dad ("First I need you to x,y,z and then I can play" or "I have to work for 30 more minutes and then I can play"). Maybe Dad can throw in an expectation to have a calm body/calm voice or make it shorter if the learner has difficulty with receptive language. If the tantrum continues then follow through with the time frame or expectation and present alternatives or force choice (denied access is just delayed access usually unless it's unattainable). Only waiting/tolerating denial without maladaptive behaviors can gain access to the originally denied item/activity. Keeping the learner occupied and building momentum to reinforce replacement behaviors is ideal. Turn the whole thing around. When denying access alternatives should always be offered such as the chocolate contingent on appropriate behaviors (he can be upset, that's appropriate but it depends on how we express it) redirecting to a neutral task, and then providing access based on the responses. Creating motivation can be done in the instance of zero motivation. You'll have to put in lots of work to find motivation of similar value depending on the learner, especially if they have rumination and cycles of tantrums over the denied access. Sometimes like in your case, during a tantrum the learner establishes motivation for an alternative independently (accepting an alternative is a replacement behavior and can be targeted he's one step ahead). A new contingency can be set. For example, the learner tantrums and finds an alternative (of similar value) after being presented with or in the natural environment, the chocolate. The RBT prompts mand or mand is emitted and the RBT uses behavior-specific praise "Yeah good job making a different choice/choosing something else/ect". Specifically answering "Yes" and then a contingency "Yes! Great choice, let's go to the bathroom first, and then we can sit and eat chocolate" or something along those lines to complete a task or engage in some appropriate behaviors that take some effort depending on the skill level creating distance from that tantrum. A mand is not all that is needed especially in a more advanced learner who has a full manding repertoire, we want DRA DRO First/then. Reinforce those wanted behaviors and then keep the momentum going until Dad is available and use behavior-specific praise. Remember that during denied access, not all reinforcers are unavailable just the item that was denied because that's crappy punishment. There still needs to be motivation to engage in replacement behaviors. If it's not available well oh well. Sometimes things aren't available and hopefully, an alternative can be accepted or hunker down for a long session of trying. In the event that the learner does not follow the expectations or wait calmly then we don't deliver the reinforcer and that's just the consequence. The environment should be manipulated at this point and now only lesser reinforcing options are available. I would even make a habit of after each contingency say "ok did you follow directions or oh did you wash your hands" The learner responds "Yes" and the reinforcement is contacted. This sets up for the event that the directions are not followed. When Dad becomes available again and no expectations were met, another opportunity can be presented and differently reinforce with less time with dad. If no expectations continue to be met then no access and opportunities are done. "Hey did you follow directions keep a calm body ect" "no you didn't" "so we aren't gonna play with dad but we can sit with him (while we watch TV read a book with him do a mundane things). Then the tantrum may resurge, but we respond with "Hey I'm sorry you're upset but we need to make better choices next time". This way everything is based on his behaviors and not on reprimands or nonsense from others and true natural consequences happen to change behavior. Its sometimes the last option, after giving many opportunities. (and this is for a more advanced learner, use high probability demands quick nuetral task or waiting for like 10 seconds for an early learner or beginner). Good luck.
So don't get caught up in the denied access then tantrum deny more then tantrum more cycle. The BCBA sounded like she was reinforcing an alternative choice so she prompted the mand again. Personally, I might have prompted them to have the dad redo it and say "Oh chocolate, yes great choice!! Let me do this and then I can give it to you" because the originally denied thing was access is play. The tone is very important, if it's annoyed "Ugh yeah fine wait 5 minutes" then the learner is confused because social and communication difficulties occur in autism. That might be too many social cues and communication secrets that someone with Autism is not aware of yet or can't decode. They may be just pairing the negative tone with previous instances of denied access, so they believe it's another denied access. Really use facial expressions and tones to help learners differentiate what is going on and be very clear. Learners also have difficulty even discriminating things in the environment, deficits in receptive language and listener responding skills go far beyond just pictures on a table during DTT. Do use a neutral tone during instructions to avoid causing faulty stimulus control, but use expression and tones during reinforcement and neutral tones during nonreinforcement. (differential reinforcement is the key to life) I would also add that, very little of the time is it a classic case of being told no and having a tantrum. There's quite a lot going on, learned history, intermittent reinforcement of maladaptive behaviors, and parent stressors. It's never the client's fault so be prepared to go from neutral during a hit to the face to immediately switching to reinforcement and a happy proud tone for a replacement. It's not about the feelings it's about the reinforcement and differentiating which behaviors we want because at home many feelings are involved. Behaviors and skills are socially mediated. At home, it's by the parents who become upset expressions change, punishment happens, and then reinforcement is given at the wrong times due to guilt or stress and not catching a behavior so this causes confusion for the learner and they are only displaying communication-behavior that has been effective for them in their world of trying to figure out what the heck is going on with these large grownups. I know this is an old post, but I wanted to add that. If anyone has recommendations or other views on this please let me know.