Search

We replicated and extended Kanaman et al. (2022) by comparing outcomes of solitary (leisure items only), social (leisure items with social interaction), and combined (leisure items alone and leisure items with social interaction) stimulus preference assessments to determine the extent to which the inclusion of social interaction influenced the outcomes of preference assessments for five children with autism. We then conducted reinforcer assessments to determine the reinforcing efficacy of high‐ and low‐preferred leisure items when presented with and without social interaction. The results showed that both high‐ and low‐preferred items functioned as reinforcers to varying degrees for all participants and the inclusion of social interaction increased the reinforcing efficacy of some items for all participants. Additionally, the results showed that combined preference assessments predicted reinforcer assessment outcomes for two of five participants but produced false‐negative outcomes for three participants. Clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In synchronous‐reinforcement schedules, the duration of behavior directly controls the duration of reinforcement on a moment‐to‐moment basis. We replicated and extended Diaz de Villegas et al. (2020) by comparing the effects of synchronous reinforcement with two accumulated‐reinforcement schedules for increasing on‐task behavior for seven preschoolers. One accumulated schedule was the same as the one used in Diaz de Villegas et al. and did not include tokens, whereas the other accumulated schedule included the delivery of tokens within session. Furthermore, we assessed preference for the three reinforcement schedules. The results showed that synchronous reinforcement was effective for increasing on‐task behavior for all seven participants. Furthermore, it was most effective for increasing on‐task behavior for three out of seven participants and preferred by all participants. For some participants, other schedules were also similarly effective. The results are discussed with respect to implications for application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the current study, experimenters implemented synchronous schedules of reinforcement to increase mask wearing for up to 30 min for six children under the age of 5 years. Additionally, for a subset of children, we evaluated whether mask wearing would continue under baseline conditions in their classroom with staff during 30 min sessions (treatment extension), and later throughout the day (all‐day probes). Results showed the intervention increased mask wearing for all children for up to 30 min. Additionally, treatment‐extension sessions and all‐day probes, conducted with some children, showed mask wearing maintained in their classroom with staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In behavior analytic research, procedural integrity refers to the extent to which the independent variable is implemented as described. Collecting and reporting data on procedural integrity are important for assessing the internal validity of a study; it assists in verifying that the independent variable, and not an extraneous variable, is responsible for intervention effects. Previous research suggests that data on procedural integrity are infrequently reported in behavior analytic studies. In organizational behavior management in particular, no recent evaluation of the reporting of data on procedural integrity exists. In the current study, we examined all empirical articles published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM) from 2000 to 2020 to examine reporting of data on procedural integrity. We found that only 23.7% of studies reported these data. Furthermore, we found that 43.8% of studies appear to be at high risk, meaning they included multiple person-implemented intervention components and no measure of procedural integrity. We conclude by offering some possible reasons as to why the number of JOBM studies reporting these data is so low and by suggesting some ways to increase the collection and reporting of procedural integrity data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]