Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior.

The acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior was evaluated in two experiments. In each experiment, clinical cases were described to undergraduate students along with four different treatments in a Replicated Latin Square Design. The treatments included reinforcement of incomparible behavior, time out from reinforcement, drug therapy, and electric shock and the treatments were described as they were appliedto children with problem behaviors. Experiment 1 developed an assessment device to evaluate treatment acceptability and examined whether treatments were rated as differentially acceptable. Experiment 2 replicated the first experiment and examined whether the severity of the presenting clinical problem influenced ratings of acceptability. The results indicated that treatments were sharply distinguished in overall acceptability. Reinforcement of incompatible behavior was more acceptable than other treatments which followed, in order, time out from reinforcement, drug therapy, and electric shock. Case severity influenced acceptability of alternative treatments with all treatments being rated as more acceptable with more severe cases. However, the strength of case severity was relatively small in relation to the different treatment conditions themselves which accounted for large portions of variance.

[1]  R. Foxx,et al.  The timeout ribbon: a nonexclusionary timeout procedure. , 1978, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[2]  B. Maher,et al.  Stimulus sampling in clinical research: representative design reviewed. , 1978, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[3]  N. Azrin,et al.  Dry pants: a rapid method of toilet training children. , 1973, Behaviour research and therapy.

[4]  N. Azrin,et al.  Restitution: a method of eliminating aggressive-disruptive behavior of retarded and brain damaged patients. , 1972, Behaviour research and therapy.

[5]  T. Risley,et al.  Contingent observation: an effective and acceptable procedure for reducing disruptive behavior of young children in a group setting. , 1976, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[6]  M. Wolf,et al.  Social validity: the case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. , 1978, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[7]  W. Agras,et al.  Time-limited desensitisation, implosion and shaping for phobic patients: a crossover study. , 1972, Behaviour research and therapy.

[8]  R. Glasgow,et al.  Behavioral bibliotherapy: a review of self-help behavior therapy manuals. , 1978, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  H. Strupp,et al.  A tripartite model of mental health and therapeutic outcomes. With special reference to negative effects in psychotherapy. , 1977, The American psychologist.

[10]  D. Campbell,et al.  Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. , 1959, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  R. Drabman,et al.  Sociometric and disruptive behavior as a function of four types of token reinforcement programs. , 1974, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[12]  D. Baer,et al.  Behavior Modification and the Law: Implications of Recent Judicial Decisions , 1976, The Journal of psychiatry & law.

[13]  N. Azrin,et al.  Required relaxation: a method of inhibiting agitative-disruptive behavior of retardates. , 1973, Behaviour research and therapy.