Developing Antecedent Interventions for Problem Behavior PDF

Here's the conversion of the provided text into a structured markdown format, following the guidelines you've provided: ## CHAPTER 18 ### Developing Antecedent Interventions for Problem Behavior **Richard G. Smith** Behavioral interventions to treat problem behavior typically involve the manipula...

Here's the conversion of the provided text into a structured markdown format, following the guidelines you've provided: ## CHAPTER 18 ### Developing Antecedent Interventions for Problem Behavior **Richard G. Smith** Behavioral interventions to treat problem behavior typically involve the manipulation or management of some environmental event or condition, with the intended result to eliminate or reduce problem behavior. We use the term antecedent intervention when we manipulate the events or conditions that occur before the behavior. We can broadly classify antecedent interventions into two categories. **Default interventions** do not depend on identification of the variables that set the occasion for and maintain the problem behavior. Default interventions can be effective for problem behaviors maintained by a range of reinforcers. Examples are antecedent exercise, environmental enrichment, protective equipment, and restraint. By contrast, **function-based interventions** involve identifying the antecedents and consequences that maintain problem behavior, and then directly manipulating at least one component of that operant contingency. We use the term functional reinforcer for the consequence that maintains problem behavior (Saini, Fisher, Retzlaff, & Keevy, 2020). For example, noncontingent reinforcement (NCR; Vollmer, 1999) is a function-based intervention in which the behavior analyst schedules delivery of the functional reinforcer on a time-based, response-independent schedule. We can further classify antecedent interventions according to the mechanism by which they decrease behavior. Some interventions affect motivating operations for problem behavior (Fisher et al., 2018; Laraway, Snycerski, Michael, & Poling, 2003), whereas others may alter discriminative functions. Motivating operations temporarily alter the effectiveness of consequences and the momentary probability of behavior that has produced those consequences in the past (Laraway et al., 2003). For example, NCR involves repeated, response-independent presentation of functional reinforcers; therefore, NCR may decrease problem behavior by abolishing the reinforcing effectiveness of those consequences via satiation or habituation (Murphy, McSweeney, Smith, & McComas, 2003). Thus we would classify NCR as a motivating-operation-based procedure. Other antecedent interventions may manage conditions or stimuli associated with differential consequences for problem behavior, thus altering discriminative control over the behavior. For example, problem behavior will decrease in contexts in which it fails to produce functional reinforcers, and the context will become an $S-delta$. Finally, some interventions ¹Interventions based on discriminative control require manipulation of both antecedent and consequent events to establish and maintain their effectiveness; thus we do not properly characterize them as exclusively antecedent interventions (i.e., the behavior analyst must actively control consequences to maintain the effectiveness of the antecedent stimulus). *** arrange the environment so that problem behavior is difficult or impossible to emit. Examples include protective equipment and mechanical restraint. In the following sections, I describe antecedent behavioral interventions designed to reduce or eliminate behavior. I present a brief review of the literature for each intervention and discuss procedural variations, functional properties (i.e., the behavioral principles that describe their effects), and strengths and limitations, starting with default interventions and following with function-based interventions. ### DEFAULT INTERVENTIONS Some antecedent procedures will decrease behavior, regardless of the operant function of problem behavior. That is, identification of the functional reinforcer is not necessary when using these interventions. As a result, we may not understand the precise mechanisms associated with these procedures' effects, compared to our understanding of procedures that correspond with a reinforcement contingency. Although prescribing intervention without requiring a prior functional analysis seems clinically expedient, default procedures have significant limitations and produce side effects. We use the term default interventions for interventions whose effects do not depend on the operant function of problem behavior. The term default does not mean that problem behavior or the intervention effects are not operant. Like function-based interventions, some default interventions may alter discriminative stimuli ($S_ds$) or motivating operations for problem behavior. However, identifying the contingency maintaining problem behavior is not a necessary component of a potentially effective default intervention. #### Antecedent Exercise Research has shown that antecedent exercise can decrease problem behavior (e.g., Allison, Basile, & MacDonald, 1991; Bachman & Fuqua, 1983; Baumeister & MacLean, 1984; Celiberti, Bobo, Kelly, Harris, & Handleman, 1997; Kern, Koegel, & Dunlap, 1984; Lochbaum & Crews, 2003, McGimsey & Favell, 1988; Powers, Thibadeau, & Rose, 1992). Antecedent exercise engages participants in a program of effortful activities such as aerobic exercise (e.g., jogging, walking, dancing, roller skating) or strength training (e.g., weight lifting). The behavior analyst typically conducts observations during or within a few minutes after exercise completion. Researchers have used antecedent exercise to decrease self-injurious behavior (SIB; Baumeister & MacLean, 1984), aggression (McGimsey & Favell, 1988; Powers et al., 1992), inappropriate vocalizations (Bachman & Fuqua, 1983; Powers et al., 1992), off-task behavior (Bachman & Fuqua, 1983), out-of-seat behavior (Celiberti et al., 1997), and stereotypy (Celiberti et al., 1997; Kern et al., 1984; Powers et al., 1992) exhibited by persons with developmental disabilities. Researchers have also used antecedent exercise to treat depression, with varying degrees of reported success (Doyne, Chambless, & Beutler, 1983); panic disorder (Broocks et al., 1998); and pain disorder (Turner & Clancy, 1988) in persons without developmental disabilities. Antecedent exercise differs from other interventions involving effortful activity such as overcorrection (Foxx & Azrin, 1972, 1973) because participants engage in it independently of occurrences of the problem behavior, typically before observation sessions. By contrast, overcorrection prescribes effortful activities contingent on problem behavior. Unlike overcorrection, the process of punishment cannot account for the effectiveness of antecedent exercise in decreasing problem behavior, because we do not present it as a consequence for problem behavior. #### Mechanisms Underlying the Effects of Antecedent Exercise Although the production of a general state of fatigue is an intuitively appealing account of the effects of antecedent exercise, research outcomes seem inconsistent with this interpretation. For example, increases in on-task behavior (Powers et al., 1992), increases in appropriate responding (Kern, Koegel, Dyer, Blew, & Fenton, 1982), and the absence of overt signs of fatigue (Baumeister & MacLean, 1984) after bouts of exercise indicate that the response-decreasing effects of this intervention are at least somewhat specific to problem behavior. In fact, researchers have reported increases in several forms of appropriate behavior after antecedent exercise in several studies (e.g., Baumeister & MacLean, 1984; Celiberti et al., 1997; Kern et al., 1982; Powers et al., 1992). These outcomes are somewhat paradoxical. This specificity of action appears to correlate most clearly with the social acceptability of the classes of behavior affected: Problematic behavior decreases and socially acceptable behavior increases after exercise. Antecedent exercise may alter the reinforcing effectiveness of the consequences that maintain problem behavior (i.e., a motivating-operations effect) (Smith & Iwata, 1997). Some researchers have suggested that antecedent exercise may function as matched stimulation, in which exercise produces free access to stimulation like that produced by problem behavior, presumably functioning as an abolishing operation for the maintaining reinforcer. For example, Morrison, Roscoe, and Atwell (2011) observed decreases in automatically reinforced problem behavior both during and after antecedent exercise for three of four participants, suggesting that exercise devalued the automatically reinforcing consequences of problem behavior. However, few studies have directly investigated the mechanisms underlying the effects of antecedent exercise. Behavior analysts tend to embrace an abolishing-operation account due to conceptual inconsistencies associated with a stimulus control (or discrimination) account of this effect. However, we should consider a motivating-operations account tentative until more definitive evidence about the behavioral mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of antecedent exercise becomes available. #### Strengths and Limitations of Antecedent Exercise Strengths of antecedent exercise are that it decreases problem behavior, increases appropriate behavior, and improves both physical and psychological health. Exercise programs have obvious physiological and medical benefits, including improved cardiovascular fitness, muscle tone, and adaptive skills. Results of some studies suggest that antecedent exercise may decrease depression and anxiety and improve measures of general psychological health (Lochbaum & Crews, 2003). A limitation of antecedent exercise is that its effects appear to be temporary, limited to a brief period immediately following the exercise. Most studies have analyzed only the short-term effects of exercise, often during or just after bouts of exercise; however, the results of more temporally extended analyses suggest that the effects of exercise on problem behavior may be transient (Bachman & Fuqua, 1983; Mays, 2013). For example, two of four participants in one study showed large and immediate decreases in problem behavior after vigorous exercise; however, these results waned across 15-minute observation sessions immediately, 1 hour, and 2 hours after exercise periods (Bachman & Fuqua, 1983). By contrast, a recent study tracked problem behavior over entire school days and showed that the effects of antecedent exercise can persist for several hours (Cannella Malone, Tullis, & Kazee, 2011). These inconsistent results indicate that we need additional research to determine what alters the durability of the effects of antecedent exercise on problem behavior. Another potential limitation of antecedent exercise is that it may be inconvenient or impossible to implement in some situations (e.g., during academic instruction). #### Enriched Environment Another way of arranging antecedent conditions to decrease problem behavior is to provide a stimulus-enriched environment. Environmental enrichment involves making preferred items, toys, educational materials, leisure and recreation items, activities, social interaction, or a combination available on a continuous, response-independent schedule. Several studies have demonstrated that environmental enrichment can be an effective intervention for SIB and stereotypic problem behavior (Berkson & Davenport, 1962; Berkson & Mason, 1963, 1965; Cuvo, May, & Post, 2001; Horner, 1980; Rapp, 2006; Ringdahl, Vollmer, Marcus, & Roane, 1997; Saini et al., 2016). Although environmental enrichment may reduce problem behavior maintained by social reinforcement, much of the literature about it has focused on stereotypic problem behavior, suggesting that it may be most appropriate to treat automatically reinforced behavior. #### Mechanisms Underlying the Effects of Environmental Enrichment At least two reasonable accounts exist for the reductive effects of environmental enrichment. First, environmental enrichment may involve competition between behavior allocated toward the enriching stimuli and problem behavior. That is, environmental enrichment may reduce problem behavior indirectly by providing alternative, competing sources of reinforcement. Results of studies indicate that environmental enrichment is more effective when researchers use highly preferred versus less preferred stimuli (e.g., Vollmer, Marcus, & LeBlanc, 1994). This finding is consistent with the notion that highly preferred stimuli compete effectively with the consequences maintaining problem behavior. One study showed that rotating sets of noncontingently available stimuli produced more durable decreases in problem behavior than did continuous availability of one set of stimuli (DeLeon Anders, Rodriguez-Catter, & Neidert, 2000). These results suggest that the participant engaged in problem behavior to produce automatic reinforcement when the effectiveness of alternative reinforcement sources waned, due to repeated or extended contact with the single-stimulus set. Rotating alternative stimuli apparently maintained the relative effectiveness of those stimuli and more effective decreased problem behavior. On the other hand, environmental enrichment may function abolishing operation and may and reduce problem behavior if its consequences and those of the environment-enriching materials are similar. In this case, we would consider environmental enrichment a function-based intervention because it depends on a functional match or a relation of substitutability between the reinforcers that environmental enrichment produces and those that maintain problem behavior. The effectiveness of the reinforcer for problem behavior may be reduced temporarily or abolished through satiation or habituation, because environmental enrichment produces the the same or similar reinfocement (Murphy et al., 2003). Research indicating that antecedent availability stimuli such as those suspected of amintainting problem behavior than availabillity of unmatched stumli e.g., Favell McGimsey & Schel, 1982 piaz et al., 1998 is consistent with this account indeed piazza, Adelinus hanley, goh, and delian (200) demonstraed that matched stimuli were more effective decreasing problem behavior than stimuli that particpants indicated were more preferred durign preintervention preference assessment these results indicate that mere comparition among reinforcing optiosn may act completely the effects environmental enrichment that the enbironmental enrichment may qualifiy functionbasedintervention in some cases. A substantial body of research suggests that environmental enrichment can have direct and beneficia effects on the brain, such as increased plasticity in the cerebral cortex and increases synaptic density (Alwis & Rajan, 2014). Moreover research results have shown that environmental enrichment can produce improved learning and memory, and that it may useful to treat range of neurological disorders, such as ALzheim-ers disease and autism spectrum disorder. Thus theeffects environmental enrichment #### Strengths and Limitations of Envirnmental Enrichment There are several clear benefits to the use of envirnmental enrichment in practice. First, environmental enrichment is simple, strightorward, easily implemented, and cost-effective. It appears to be specifically effectivfe to decrease stereotypics and automatically reinforced behavior, as it provides either source competiv reinforcement alternate means access reinforcement similar to that maintaining problem behavior. Providing a wide alternate form of stimilation makes sense operant funition of pronlem behavoir unclear difficul assess directly. in such cases, the probability that a stimulus will function to compare effectively with replace the reinforcer that problem behavior produces can increased simply providing many alternatibes. We can further increase probability of finding an effective alternate matching sensory propertoes those stimuli those associated with the problem behavior thought environmental enrichment teach new altemate behavior dirctl availability alternative activities ands items assoiciated with improvemnt object-directed behavior ( horner 1980) #### Restraint, Protective Equipment, and RestraintEquipment Forms of Response Restriction Researchers have evaluated the effects of restraint, protective equipment, and other means to mitigate or prevent injury from occurences problem behavior ( Derosa, Roane, Wilson, Novak, & Silkowski, 2015; Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Hanley, Adelinis, 1997). These interventions physically impede occurencecompletion problem behavior. Athough cases intervemtons unquestionably effective decreasing eliminating problem behavior, most consider them ah highly intensive as problems analyst emergency situtions anal that behavior analyst when behavior that produce substantail property d We typicaly categories procedures for physical restricted problem behavior form. Persoanl restraint care givers physically securing and holders body that probelem behavior canot occur care givers often episode probelem behavior bagan conseqencebased intervention hovever can antacedent interventions situations problem For ex- ample caregivers child visit child engage probelem behavior during percedures. mechenical restraints sercuring limbbody purpose straight jackets. mech personal restrint stop oungoign episode probelem behavior probelem Finally mechancal devices howevery pormits earning problem behavior damage (g. a padded Prevent problem usuallyless Include such safety helmet