دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی تقویت دیفرانسیل پاسخ کم در آموزش مهارت های اجتماعی – الزویر ۲۰۱۷
|عنوان فارسی:||تقویت دیفرانسیل پاسخ کم در آموزش مهارت های اجتماعی|
|عنوان انگلیسی:||Differential reinforcement of low rate responding in social skills training|
|تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی : 7||تعداد صفحات ترجمه فارسی : ترجمه نشده|
|سال انتشار : 2017||نشریه : الزویر - Elsevier|
|فرمت مقاله انگلیسی : PDF||کد محصول : E7816|
|محتوای فایل : PDF||حجم فایل : Kb 500|
|رشته های مرتبط با این مقاله: علوم اجتماعی، علوم تربیتی|
|گرایش های مرتبط با این مقاله: مدیریت آموزشی|
|مجله: یادگیری و انگیزه - Learning and Motivation|
|دانشگاه: The Scott Center for Autism Treatment and Florida Institute of Technology - United States|
|کلمات کلیدی: تقویت دیفرانسیل با نرخ پایین، DRL، مهارتهای اجتماعی|
Social skills are unique in that excessive rates of responding may be just as socially undesirable as deficient responding. Furthermore, most social skills training programs utilize group formats such that one intervention (e.g., differential reinforcement) is applied universally to children with varied behavioral repertoires. Following exposure to continuous schedules of reinforcement for pro-social behaviors, we observed excessive levels of peer-directed compliments and physical contact. Thus, we evaluated the effectiveness of a full-session differential reinforcement of low rate responding (DRL) schedule in maintaining socially appropriate levels of these interactions. We used descriptive observations of typically developing children to establish normative criteria for the DRL schedules. Results indicated full-session DRL schedules were effective in maintaining participants’ responding at levels below criterion levels without wholly eliminating responding.
Results indicated that full-session DRL was effective in reducing targeted responding to criterion levels while maintaining above zero responding for all five participants (although Donny engaged in very low levels of responding that may have been eliminated had data collection continued). This finding is consistent with and extends upon past research in which participants received withinsession feedback regarding their response rates (Austin & Bevan, 2011; Hagopian et al., 2009). It is noteworthy that the current study showed maintenance of low rate responding even in the absence of within-session feedback. In the absence of such feedback, participants who are unclear about how many responses have been emitted and how many (more) will be tolerated may behave conservatively and cease responding altogether. However, our results did not reveal such an effect. Indeed, this study extends upon prior research by demonstrating taht the effects of full-session DRL can be maintained in the absence of within-session feedback as well as when the salience of schedule parameters is systematically faded. Although data are limited, our findings indicated these effects were maintained even after the treatment contingency was removed altogether for three participants.
Perhaps most notably, our results contradict earlier findings by demonstrating response persistence throughout treatment in the absence of any immediate (within session) reinforcement or feedback delivery. Recent research by Jessel and Borrero (2014) suggests the behavioral mechanisms underlying interval and full-session DRL differ from spaced-responding DRL in that the former function Fig. 1. Rates of social responding across conditions. Dotted vertical lines represent discrimination training for Barry, Donny, Joe, and Bernard. Dotted horizontal lines represent the reinforcement criterion specified by the DRL schedule. D.M. Gadaire et al. Learning and Motivation 60 (2017) 34–40 38 more as ‘DRO-with-tolerance schedules’ that are often associated with elimination of responding. However, some procedural variations between these two studies bear note. First, Jessel and Borrero used a computer application in which multiple schedule components were not explicitly described. It is possible that participants did not readily discriminate schedule changes, though the authors noted that many participants were able to verbally tact the contingencies in place following completion of the study. Perhaps more importantly, Jessel and Borrero used a DRL criterion for allowable responses that may be more stringent than would commonly be used in application. As such, participants may have experienced the contingency as a DRO rather than a DRL. While their arrangement was necessary for purposes of comparing spaced responding and full session DRL, it may limit the generality of findings regarding DRL in applied settings.