English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The purpose of this study was to utilize the matching theory to understand intra-response class covariation as a result of extinction for selected members of the response class versus functional communication training. The participant was a 9-year old girl with a severe disability and problem behaviors. Experimental procedures included functional analysis, extinction, and functional communication training. Results showed that in accordance with the matching theory, responses (problem or adaptive) that were continuously reinforced occurred at a higher rate when compared to responses on extinction. In addition, extinction for some problem responses increased the rate of non-targeted problem responses; however, concurrent reinforcement of a newly learned functionally equivalent communication response increased the rate of this behavior and decreased all problem behaviors. Keywords: Matching theory, response class, covariation, extinction, functional communication training, developmental disabilities, problem behavior.  Researchers and practitioners continue to be fascinated with understanding and analyzing operant behavior patterns to facilitate the development of enduring behavior support strategies. Toward that goal, the matching theory continues to serve as a foundation for furthering our understanding of the causes of socially mediated behavior specifically for individuals with disabilities and/or behavior disorders. Herrnstein (1970) describes the matching law as a mathematical means for elucidating how behavior responds to concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Stated simply, responses that are consequated with a higher number of reinforcers occur at higher rates than responses that are reinforced at lower (or zero) rates. Both rational and irrational behavior has been explained using the matching theory (Borrero & Vollmer, 2002; Bulow & Meller, 1998; Shriver & Kramer, 1997; Skinner & Robinson, 1996). The basic assumption is that response allocation of operant behavior is a matter of choice. A choice of any topography over the others at a given point in time is possible only when multiple responses are involved, all of which produce the same functional effect. The literature has described this pattern as a functional response class (Lalli, Mace, Wohn, & Livezy, 1995; Shukla & Albin, 1996; Shukla-Mehta & Albin, 2003; Sprague & Horner, 1992). The concept of response classes is not novel. Still, researchers and practitioners continue to focus attention on understanding what governs choice or the allocation of specific topographies from a class of responses. Such interest has been generated due to observed covariation as a function of concurrently varying rates of reinforcement for the different topographies within a response class (Magee & Ellis, 2000; Parrish, Cataldo, Kolko, Neef, & Egel, 1986). In addition, there has been an observed philosophical shift in the field from the use of decelerative techniques alone in favor of strategies that also lead to increases in adaptive behavior (Carr, Coriaty, & Dozier, 2000; Carr & Durand, 1985; Day, Horner, & O'Neill, 1994; Dunlap, et al, 1995; Horner & Carr, 1997; Horner, Sprague, O'Brien, & Heathfield, 1990; Sugai et al., 2000). With the advent of hypotheses-based interventions and the focus on identification of multiple topographies within a functional response class, application of the matching theory to understand behavioral allocation has gained momentum. If some topographies within a response class are consequated with a richer schedule of reinforcement (positive or negative), these will occur at higher rates. Our clinical experiences show that more severe topographies of problem behaviors usually lead to a functional reinforcer, example, escape from non-preferred tasks, attention form others, access to tangible objects, and/or sensory reinforcement. …

Understanding intra-response class covariation from the matching theory perspective.