регистрация / вход

Functional Communication Training Essay Research Paper Thepurpose

Functional Communication Training Essay, Research Paper purpose of this research was interesting and of value as it focused on problems that often occur when Functional Communication Training (FCT) is in use. This

Functional Communication Training Essay, Research Paper

The

purpose of this research was interesting 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 ?. . .response[s] may be

weakened and destructive behavior[s] may reemerge . . .? when reinforcements

of communication are delayed or denied due to impossibility or inconvenience of

the caregiver or instructors ability to provide said reinforcement in a timely

manner. ?. . .procedures are needed to increase the effectiveness of FCT in

situations in which it is impractical or impossible to deliver a given

reinforcer.? Research design and design rationale: This study was broken up

into 4 phases (the fourth phase ?. . .was completed with only 1 participant in

only one condition because of time limitations on the participants? hospital

admission.?) Phase 1: Functional Analyses and Descriptive Assessments.

Alternating treatment with no baseline design. ?During this analysis, a test

condition . . .and a control condition were compared using 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 alone with the final series being strictly FCT/ACT (w/o EXT).

The order of presentation for Amy?s discrimination training were ?. .

.stimulus-present and stimulus-absent periods [that] were alternated every 30 s

for the duration of the 10-min session. For Ned, ?. . .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 ?conducted 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 . . .attention [for Ned],? therefore this specific

phase of the test did not require a baseline. Once these results were

established, and training had incurred, the rationale for design for Phases 3

and 4 were to show contrast between the various interventions. Overall study

limitations: I think this study covered it?s bases well and the only

limitation I can rightly see is one that is prone to single-subject research,

that is, the use of only two participants. It would have strengthened this study

further too if the researchers had been able to complete the final Phase 4 on

both of the participants.

ОТКРЫТЬ САМ ДОКУМЕНТ В НОВОМ ОКНЕ

ДОБАВИТЬ КОММЕНТАРИЙ [можно без регистрации]

Ваше имя:

Комментарий