Unit 7 replies

I need support with this Psychology question so I can learn better.

Review your peers’ outline of how they would conduct a structural and consequence analysis for the provided scenario. Explain ethical considerations that would apply to the functional analysis that your peer has outlined.

Peer 1:

I would conduct a structural analysis for Debbie by systematically manipulating antecedent variables and documenting their effects on her behavior. Unlike a functional analysis I would not arrange the contingent delivery of reinforcing consequences, but will only test hypotheses about the antecedent variables that trigger the occurrence of problem behaviors. To start, difficultly classifications will be determined, then the teacher will present 5 to 10 minute tasks at each level of difficultly to Debbie (Steege et al., 2020). Some antecedent conditions that would be presented would be: non-preferred tasks, non-preferred demands, intentional ignoring, and unstructured play. Right when the teacher presents a task I will begin 10-second interval recording to document the occurrence or nonoccurrence of interfering behavior during each interval (Steege et al., 2020).

I would conduct a consequence analysis for Debbie by arranging four different conditions to examine their effects on self-injurious behavior. Those conditions would be social disapproval, academic demand, alone, and unstructured play. This procedure would present these different motivating operations likely to trigger self-injurious behavior and then would deliver reinforcing consequences likely to maintain self-injurious behavior. Each experimental session would last 15 minutes, and multiple sessions for each condition would be conduced over several days until trends in data emerged. The data trends that develop could be used as evidence for specific functional hypotheses. For example, if self-injurious behavior happens frequently in the social disapproval condition and infrequently in the other conditions, those results would show that the behavior was triggered by low attention and maintained by positive reinforcement (Steege et al., 2019).

Reference

Steege, M. W., Pratt, J. L., Wickerd, G., Guare, R., Watson, T. S. (2019). Conducting School-Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition. New York: Guilford Publications.

Peer 2:

A structural analysis for the scenario would begin with identifying the antecedents that are followed by the behavior. In the structural analysis, we would determine which antecedent we would change and how. Once we change this antecedent, we would observe how it effects the behavior (Steege, Pratt, Wicherd, Guare & Watson, 2019). This will be recorded as data. The analysis will continue until all the antecedents are changed and the behavior is recorded. For the scenario, a specific antecedent condition would be the teacher giving out a worksheet. The change could be giving Debbie half of the problems to complete. The data collection method would be direct observation with an ABC sheet. For consequence analysis, the control phase would include the analyst going on as normal. This would determine what consequences occur because of the behavior. From here, the consequences can be changed to eliminate or lessen the behavior. For example, when Debbie does not engage in SIB, she will be reward with a tangible compared to a talk from the teacher or someone else.

Kayla

Steege, M. W., Pratt, J. L., Wickerd, G., Guare, R., Watson, T. S. Conducting School-Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition. [Purdue University Global Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://purdueuniversityglobal.vitalsource.com/#/b…