Educational Research Single Su :: essays research papers

Educational Research exclusive-Subject CritiqueEstablishing Discriminative chair of Responding Using useable and Alternative Reinforcers During available Communication TrainingWayne W. Fisher, David E. Kuhn, and Rachel H. Thompson appropriateness of research question or purposeThe purpose of this research was arouse and of value as it focused on problems that often occur when Functional Communication Training (FCT) is in use. This study sought to find sound solutions as desired & adenylic acid8220. . .responses may be weakened and bad behaviors may reemerge . . . when reinforcements of communication are delayed or denied due to impracticableness or inconvenience of the caregiver or instructors ability to provide express reinforcement in a sniply manner. & deoxyadenosine monophosphate8220. . .procedures are ask to increase the in effect(p)ness of FCT in situations in which it is impractical or unfeasible to deliver a effrontery reinforcer.Research build and design pri ncipleThis study was broken up into 4 phases (the fourth phase & group A8220. . .was completed with only 1 instrumentalist in only atomic number 53(a) condition because of term limitations on the thespians&8217 hospital admission.) Phase 1 Functional Analyses and Descriptive Assessments. Alternating treatment with no baseline design. &8220During this analysis, a establish condition . . .and a control condition were compared apply a multi-element design. Phase 2 Communication and Discrimination Training. Phase 3 Treatment Evaluation of FCT with Discriminative Stimuli. Between series, alternating treatment (ABAB) design was used to compare FCT + EXT vs. ACT + EXT in two conditions for one participant (Amy) and in one condition for one participant (Ned). Phase 4 Independent Effects of FCT and EXT. Between series, alternating treatment and a concluding treatment design was used to compare FCT/ACT (w/o EXT) vs. EXT merely with the last series being strictly FCT/ACT (w/o E XT).The allege of presentation for Amy&8217s discrimination training were &8220. . . input-present and comment-absent periods that were alternated all(prenominal) 30 s for the duration of the 10-min session. For Ned, &8220. . .one SD at a time was presented for 1 min. The suppose of the first three SD presentations in a assumption session was randomized, without replacement thereafter, the order remained constant. Phase 1 was &8220conducted to establish the hypotheses generated by the results of. . .descriptive assessments. . .to determine whether . . . pestiferous behavior was multiply maintained by some(prenominal) attention and access to tangible items, but under specific stimulus conditions for Amy. . .and whether destructive behavior was maintained by .Educational Research Single Su essays research papers Educational ResearchSingle-Subject CritiqueEstablishing Discriminative admit of Responding Using Functional and Alternative Reinforcers During Functional Communication TrainingWayne W. Fisher, David E. Kuhn, and Rachel H. Thompson justness of research question or purposeThe purpose of this research was elicit and of value as it focused on problems that often occur when Functional Communication Training (FCT) is in use. This study sought to find effective solutions as desired &8220. . .responses may be weakened and destructive behaviors may reemerge . . . when reinforcements of communication are delayed or denied due to impossibility or inconvenience of the caregiver or instructors ability to provide give tongue to reinforcement in a timely manner. &8220. . .procedures are require to increase the effectiveness of FCT in situations in which it is impractical or impossible to deliver a given reinforcer.Research design and design preceptThis study was broken up into 4 phases (the fourth phase &8220. . .was completed with only 1 participant in only one condition because of time limitations on the participants&8217 hospit al admission.) Phase 1 Functional Analyses and Descriptive Assessments. Alternating treatment with no baseline design. &8220During this analysis, a test condition . . .and a control condition were compared employ a multi-element design. Phase 2 Communication and Discrimination Training. Phase 3 Treatment Evaluation of FCT with Discriminative Stimuli. Between series, alternating treatment (ABAB) design was used to compare FCT + EXT vs. ACT + EXT in two conditions for one participant (Amy) and in one condition for one participant (Ned). Phase 4 Independent Effects of FCT and EXT. Between series, alternating treatment and a final treatment design was used to compare FCT/ACT (w/o EXT) vs. EXT solely with the final series being strictly FCT/ACT (w/o EXT).The order of presentation for Amy&8217s discrimination training were &8220. . .stimulus-present and stimulus-absent periods that were alternated every(prenominal) 30 s for the duration of the 10-min session. For Ned, &8220. . .one SD at a time was presented for 1 min. The order of the first three SD presentations in a given session was randomized, without replacement thereafter, the order remained constant. Phase 1 was &8220conducted to test the hypotheses generated by the results of. . .descriptive assessments. . .to determine whether . . .destructive behavior was multiply maintained by both attention and access to tangible items, but under specific stimulus conditions for Amy. . .and whether destructive behavior was maintained by .