Developing stimulus control for occurrences of stereotypy exhibited by a child with autism.

Abstract

Stereotypy is a relatively common behavior exhibited by children with autism, and teachers report that stereotypy often interferes with teaching children functional and adaptive skills (Wehmeyer, 1991). Stereotypy is defined as repetitive behavior that does not serve an adaptive function (Baumeister & Forehand, 1973). Potential ramifications of high frequency stereotypy are social isolation, restrictive treatments, limited educational opportunities, and decreased educational programming due to increased emphasis on reduction of stereotypy (Dunlap, Dyer, & Koegel, 1983; Koegel & Covert, 1972). Many, but not all, cases of stereotypy are maintained by automatic reinforcement, and responses maintained by automatic reinforcement are difficult to treat because the reinforcer is directly produced by engaging in the behavior. This direct production of the reinforcer does not allow teachers or caregivers to systematically control and deliver the reinforcer for an appropriate alternative behavior. Although research on enriched environments, blocking stereotypy, and providing individuals with matched or competing stimuli have resulted in decreased occurrences of automatically maintained stereotypy, these treatments are often labor-intensive and difficult to maintain over long periods of time (Goh et al., 1995; Lalli et al., 1996; Piazza, Adelinis, Hanley, Goh & Delia, 2000; Shore Iwata, DeLeon, Kahng, & Smith 1997). One alternative to attempting to reduce or eliminate automatically maintained repetitive behavior is to teach individuals when and where engaging in stereotypic behavior is appropriate (e.g., free choice times). The concept of using environmental manipulations to evoke certain behaviors correlated with specific antecedent stimuli is an important aim of nearly every type of instructional program (Green, 2001). Additionally, Charlop, Kurtz, and Casey (1990) demonstrated that one useful intervention for decreasing stereotypy is to use it as a reinforcer for the absence of stereotypy while students engaged in skill acquisition programming. That is, one potentially useful strategy is to teach children that they can engage in stereotypic behavior during specific environmental situations after they have refrained from engaging in stereotypic behavior and allocated responses to developing adaptive behavior. As such, it is important to provide instructional environments that decrease stereotypic behavior following specific antecedents and to allow stereotypy during different antecedent stimuli. This type of stimulus control intervention has previously been shown to be useful for controlling occurrences of mands in children with developmental disabilities (Fisher, Kuhn & Thompson, 1998) and occurrences of stereotypy (Conroy, Asmus, Sellers & Ladwig, 2005; Doughty, Anderson, Doughty, Williams & Saunders, 2007; Mckenzie, Smith, Simmons, & Soderlund, 2008; Piazza, Hanley, & Fisher, 1996; Richman, Lindauer, Crosland, Mckercher, & Morse, 2001; Rollings & Baumister, 1981; Woods, 1983). Most recently, Doughty et al. (2007) showed that stimulus control of stereotypy could be achieved via pairing one stimulus with free access to stereotypy while pairing a different stimulus with a response reduction procedure (i.e., hands down) delivered contingent on occurrences of stereotypy exhibited by three participants with severe-to-profound mental retardation. Similarly, Conroy et al. (2005) demonstrated the effectiveness of this type of stimulus control intervention in a general education classroom for a child with average intelligence and an autism spectrum disorder. In the present study, we replicated Doughty et al. and Conroy et al. by establishing stimulus control over stereotypy exhibited by a child with autism by pairing a green card with free access to engage in stereotypy and a red card with vocal redirection and blocking stereotypy. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.