1. Behavioural Interventions for Children with Autism
My presentation is on specific behavioural interventions for children with Autism.
Priscilla Paul
January 27, 2010

2. The Articles
Classic Article: Wolf, M., Risley, T., & Mees, H. (1964). The application of operant conditioning procedures to the behavior problems of an autistic child. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1,
My Article: Lucyshyn, J., Albin, R., Horner, R., Mann, J.C., Mann, J.A., & Wadsworth, G. (2007). Family implementation of positive behavior support for a child with autism. Journal of Positive Behavioural Interventions, 9:3,
The classic article I looked at was the application of operant conditioning procedures to the behaviour problems of an autistic child. The second article, published forty years later, is family implementation of positive behavior support for a child with autism.

3. How is my article related to the classic article?
Common Themes:
Autism
Severe problem behaviours
Single subject studies (Dickie at age 3.5 vs. Katherine from age 5-15)
Behavioural interventions (Operant Conditioning vs. Positive Behavioural Support [PBS])
How is my article related to the classic article?
These articles are both research studies on a single subject with autism and a multiplicity of problem behaviours. The 1964 study is about a three and a half year old child with autism named Dickie and his problem behaviours include temper tantrums, bedtime problems and difficulties wearing his glasses. The 2007 study is about a five year girl named Katherine with autism and a severe intellectual disability. Her problem behaviours include screaming, throwing items and physical aggression.
In addition, both of these articles focus on behavioural interventions for children with autism. The 1964 article focuses on operant conditioning to improve behaviour, while the 2007 study focuses on positive behavioural support to improve behaviour. In operant conditioning, a child’s behaviour is modified by delivering consequences immediately following the behaviour. The likelihood of a specific behaviour to occur is either increased or decreased through positive or negative reinforcement. For instance, in Dickie’s case, they often sent him to a time-out room to reduce the likelihood of temper tantrums. The assumption is that this aversive experience immediately following his problem behaviour would deter him from exhibiting this problem behaviour in the future. After all, he would associate this negative event, the time-out, with his temper tantrums.
In the 2007 study, positive behavioural support strategies were put in place. The researchers determined setting events, antecedents, teaching and consequence strategies to improve Katherine’s behaviour. Positive behavioural support (PBS) involves decreasing the likelihood that problem behaviour will occur by controlling events that may set the stage or trigger problem behaviour. For instance, when Katherine was ill, fewer demands would be placed on her, a setting event strategy, and when she seemed agitated during a task she would receive a break, an antecedent strategy. Positive behavioural support also involves determining the function of the individual’s behaviour and teaching them more acceptable ways to communicate. For example, Katherine was taught to express her needs and wants through direct modelling from adults. Once she demonstrated the appropriate behaviour, consequent strategies were put in place to reinforce this desired behaviour.

4. The Purpose of this Article
Strengthen the internal and external validity of the PBS approach
Offer additional observational data of the quality of life of a special needs child with severe behaviour
Examine if the behaviour change persisted over time
What is the purpose of this article?
The first purpose of this article is to strengthen the internal and external validity of the positive behavioural support approach. For example, can we make causal inferences that it is the positive behavioural strategies effecting behaviour (internal validity)? Can we generalize these results to other situations (external validity)?
The second purpose is to offer additional observational data on the quality of life of a special need’s child with severe behaviour. One of the ways they did this was by tracking the number of community outings Katherine made over a ten year period. If the number of community events increased, it could be assumed that her quality of life improved.
Lastly, these experimenters wanted to examine if the behaviour change from their intervention persisted over time. These researchers made a positive behavioural support plan and collected data over a ten year period in order to determine if improvements in Katherine’s behaviour could be sustained.

5. Description of the Research Study
Participant:
Katherine from the age of 5-15
Settings:
Family dinner
Bed-time routine
Fast-food restaurant dining
Brief shopping trips
Measurement:
The Portable Computer Systems for Observation Use
Dependent Variables:
Rate of problem behaviour
Latency in minutes
Indicator behaviours
Child activity patterns
Social validity of PBS approach
Social validity of research procedures
Contextual fit of PBS
Procedures:
Positive behavioural support plan
Implementation, training and maintenance support
Description of the Research Study
Participant: The participant in the study was a girl named Katherine and her behaviour was studied from the age of five to fifteen.
Settings: The settings her behaviours were most commonly observed in were family dinners, her bed-time routine, fast-food dining and brief shopping trips to the grocery store.
Measurement Procedures: The family was videotaped during problem routines and The Portable Computer Systems for Observation Use was used to record rate and duration data of problem behaviour.
Dependent variables in this experiment include the rate of her problem behaviour. How often did the behaviours occur in a one minute time interval on average? The behaviours they collected data on included screaming, physical resistance, leaving assigned areas, destructive behaviour and physical aggression. The next dependent variable is latency in minutes. It was defined as “the number of minutes that elapsed from the start of the routine to the first instance of untolerated behaviour or the third instance of tolerated behavior” (Lucyshyn et al., 2007: 134). Indicator behaviours were defined as “incidents of moderate- to high-intensity problem behaviour” (Lucyshyn et al., 2007: 134). For example, five seconds of high-intensity screaming or one or more instances of physical aggression. Child activity patterns involved participation in community events. Additionally, Katherine’s parents completed surveys on the social validity of the PBS approach and research procedures. Did her parents find that the PBS approach and research procedures actually benefited their child? Also, was there a good contextual fit of PBS to this specific family’s routines and life in general?
Procedure: The procedure involved creating a written positive behavioural support plan by conducting a functional interview and analysis. The plan also involved coaching, frequent team meetings, maintenance support and video data collection.

6. Summary of Results Rate of behaviour (8.1/min to 0.5/min)
Latency in behaviour
(0/29 routines completed to 27/36 routines)
Daily indicator behaviours
(0.7/hour to 0.2/hour)
Activity Patterns
(98/month baseline to 205/month)
Social Validity of PBS approach
(Average of 4.5/5)
Social Validity of research methods
(Average of 4.9/5)
Contextual fit of PBS
(Average of 4.6/5)

7. Conclusion: Did it flow from the evidence presented?
Problem behaviour decreased to zero or near zero levels
Participation in routines increased from zero to 75% of the routines observed
The changes were maintained over a seven year period and showed further improvements
Parents also showed marked improvements in their quality of life
The conclusion: Did it flow from the evidence presented?
The researchers reported that problem behaviour decreased to zero or near zero levels. I agree if they are taking the rate of problem behaviour into consideration. The rate of problem behaviour went from 8.1 incidents a minute to approximately 0.5 incidents a minute seven years later. However, if they are referring to daily indicator behaviours, baseline data showed that is was already near zero at 0.7/hour during the baseline. Furthermore, stating that indicator behaviours went to near zero levels is not a significant change because they started at near zero levels. This being said, I do believe the fact that the indicator behaviours decreased by approximately 75%, from 0.7/hour to 0.2/hour is a significant improvement.
Lucyshyn et al., (2007) also stated that participation in routines increased from zero to 75% and this is an accurate statement. Baseline date documented that 0 out of 29 routines could be completed, and the intervention phase showed that 27 out of 36 routines were completed. As 27 out of 36 is 75%, this is true.
The changes were indeed maintained over a seven year period and showed further improvements. The results show that the rate of problem behaviour was initially at 8.1 incidents each minute, during intervention it fell to 1.5 each minute and 7.2 years later decreased even further to 0.5 incidents a minute. I believe that it would be more accurate to state that the changes were maintained over a seven year period and a slight improvement was noted. The difference from 1.5 incidents a minute to 0.5 incidents a minute is not that significant.
Katherine’s parents also showed marked improvements in their quality of life. Her parents were less anxious, less isolated and Katherine’s mother’s depressive symptoms even decreased.

8. Why do I think that this article is important?
This study shows that positive behavioural support is effective and improvements in behaviour can be maintained over time
Parents were taught skills that could be generalized to new situations
Behaviour is viewed as communication
Parents were actively involved in the positive behavioural support process
Showed how important the entire family’s quality of life is
Why do I think that this article is important?
I believe this study is important because it shows that positive behavioural support is effective and improvements in behaviour can be maintained over time. The positive behavioural support strategies showed a marked improvement in Katherine’s behaviour ten years later. The parents were even supplied with an intervention package that helped them use PBS strategies in new situations.
Additionally, the positive behavioural approach determines the communicative intent behind the child’s behaviour. The child is not seen as troublesome. Their behaviour is solely viewed as communication. If the child cannot communicate their needs and wants in an appropriate manner, they are directly taught how to do this.
I also liked that the parents were actively involved in the positive behavioural support process. After all, in order for behavioural strategies to work, we need to ensure that the family has the resources and knowledge to implement the plan. We also need to ensure that they believe that the plan will actually work. In my role as an integration teacher, I have found that behavioural recommendations will not be carried out if the key players do not philosophically believe it will work.
Lastly, I liked how the PBS approach looks at the quality of life of the entire family. Although we are only trying to improve Katherine’s behaviour, we need to keep in mind that she is just one player in the entire family dynamic. If other members are unhappy or stressed, it will greatly impact Katherine’s behaviour. Furthermore, I was glad to see that her parents’ quality of life also improved.