Educational Research Single Su :: essays research papers

Educational ResearchSingle-Subject CritiqueEstablishing Discriminative comptroller of Responding Using usable and Alternative Reinforcers During Functional Communication cultivationWayne W. Fisher, David E. Kuhn, and Rachel H. ThompsonAppropriateness of research question or purposeThe purpose of this research was interesting and of harbor as it focused on problems that often occur when Functional Communication Training (FCT) is in use. This study sought to find effective solutions as want &8220. . .responses may be weakened and destructive behaviors may reemerge . . . when reinforcements of communion are delayed or denied due to impossibility or inconvenience of the caregiver or instructors ability to provide said reinforcement in a timely manner. &8220. . .procedures are needed to increase the effectiveness of FCT in situations in which it is impractical or impossible to deliver a given reinforcer.Research protrude and design rationaleThis study was broken up into 4 phases ( the fourth phase &8220. . .was realized with only 1 actor in only iodin condition because of time limitations on the participants&8217 hospital admission.) arrange 1 Functional Analyses and Descriptive Assessments. jump treatment with no baseline design. &8220During this analysis, a test condition . . .and a control condition were compared using a multi-element design. Phase 2 Communication and contrariety Training. Phase 3 Treatment Evaluation of FCT with Discriminative Stimuli. betwixt series, alternating treatment (ABAB) design was used to compare FCT + EXT vs. ACT + EXT in two conditions for angiotensin-converting enzyme participant (Amy) and in one condition for one participant (Ned). Phase 4 Independent Effects of FCT and EXT. Between series, alternating treatment and a nett treatment design was used to compare FCT/ACT (w/o EXT) vs. EXT alone with the final series being strictly FCT/ACT (w/o EXT).The order of notification for Amy&8217s discrimination training were & 8220. . .stimulus-present and stimulus-absent periods that were alternated every 30 s for the duration of the 10-min session. For Ned, &8220. . .one SD at a time was presented for 1 min. The order of the first three SD presentations in a given session was randomized, without replacement thereafter, the order remained constant. Phase 1 was &8220conducted to test the hypotheses generated by the results of. . .descriptive assessments. . .to determine whether . . .destructive behavior was multiply maintained by some(prenominal) attention and access to tangible items, but under particular proposition stimulus conditions for Amy. . .and whether destructive behavior was maintained by .Educational Research Single Su essays research papers Educational ResearchSingle-Subject CritiqueEstablishing Discriminative Control of Responding Using Functional and Alternative Reinforcers During Functional Communication TrainingWayne W. Fisher, David E. Kuhn, and Rachel H. ThompsonAppropriateness of r esearch question or purposeThe purpose of this research was interesting and of value as it focused on problems that often occur when Functional Communication Training (FCT) is in use. This study sought to find effective solutions as desired &8220. . .responses may be weakened and destructive behaviors may reemerge . . . when reinforcements of communication are delayed or denied due to impossibility or inconvenience of the caregiver or instructors ability to provide said reinforcement in a timely manner. &8220. . .procedures are needed to increase the effectiveness of FCT in situations in which it is impractical or impossible to deliver a given reinforcer.Research design and design rationaleThis study was broken up into 4 phases (the fourth phase &8220. . .was completed with only 1 participant in only one condition because of time limitations on the participants&8217 hospital admission.) Phase 1 Functional Analyses and Descriptive Assessments. Alternating treatment with no baseline d esign. &8220During this analysis, a test condition . . .and a control condition were compared using a multi-element design. Phase 2 Communication and Discrimination Training. Phase 3 Treatment Evaluation of FCT with Discriminative Stimuli. Between series, alternating treatment (ABAB) design was used to compare FCT + EXT vs. ACT + EXT in two conditions for one participant (Amy) and in one condition for one participant (Ned). Phase 4 Independent Effects of FCT and EXT. Between series, alternating treatment and a final treatment design was used to compare FCT/ACT (w/o EXT) vs. EXT alone with the final series being strictly FCT/ACT (w/o EXT).The order of presentation for Amy&8217s discrimination training were &8220. . .stimulus-present and stimulus-absent periods that were alternated every 30 s for the duration of the 10-min session. For Ned, &8220. . .one SD at a time was presented for 1 min. The order of the first three SD presentations in a given session was randomized, without repla cement thereafter, the order remained constant. Phase 1 was &8220conducted to test the hypotheses generated by the results of. . .descriptive assessments. . .to determine whether . . .destructive behavior was multiply maintained by both attention and access to tangible items, but under specific stimulus conditions for Amy. . .and whether destructive behavior was maintained by .