Educational Research Single Su :: essays research papers

educational ResearchSingle-Subject CritiqueEstablishing Discriminative Control of Responding Using working(a) and Alternative Reinforcers During Functional Communication TrainingWayne W. Fisher, David E. Kuhn, and Rachel H. ThompsonAppropriateness of research question or conclusionThe purpose of this research was interesting and of value as it pore on problems that often occur when Functional Communication Training (FCT) is in use. This study seek to find effective solutions as desired &8220. . .responses may be weakened and destructive conducts may reemerge . . . when reinforcements of communication are delayed or denied due to impossible action or inconvenience of the caregiver or instructors ability to fork up said reinforcement in a timely manner. &8220. . .procedures are needed to increase the effectualness of FCT in situations in which it is impractical or impossible to accept a wedded reinforcer.Research rule and design rationaleThis study was broken up into 4 phase s (the fourth phase &8220. . .was completed with only 1 participant in only one condition because of time limitations on the participants&8217 hospital admission.) grade 1 Functional Analyses and Descriptive Assessments. Alternating treatment with no baseline design. &8220During this analysis, a test condition . . .and a control condition were comparabilityd using a multi-element design. Phase 2 Communication and Discrimination Training. Phase 3 Treatment Evaluation of FCT with Discriminative Stimuli. amidst 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 stringently FCT/ACT (w/o EXT).The order of presentation for Amy&8217s variation training were &8220. . .sti mulus-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 both attention and doorway to tangible items, but under specific 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 research question or purposeThe purpos e 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 design. &8220During this analysis, a t est 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 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 both attention and access to tangible items, but under specific stimulus conditions for Amy. . .and whether destructive behavior was maintained by .