1 addtional Citation from a peer reviewed journal per post.
Each Post should be 200 words
and focus on thought provoking conversation building on each post.
For researchers obtaining steady-state responding is critical for the results to have more reliability in terms of the intervention being the reason for the change in responding. This is important when trying to get others to believe in the effectiveness of an intervention. If data is not stable it indicates that there may be extraneous variables at play and therefore, there is less confidence that the intervention is the only cause for the changes in behavior. It is due to this that obtaining a steady state responding before changing conditions is so important for researchers. They want their published work to be reliable and repeatable when used by others (Johnson et al., 2020).
However, in applied settings, obtaining steady-state responding is not as easy. Unlike in research settings, when conducting interventions with a client, not all aspects of the environment can be pre-determined and arranged. This can lead to various problems with the intervention like if you do your best to eliminate environmental variables, then the setting is no longer the natural learning environment and leads to the learner having to be put in more restrictive environments and the practitioner having to additionally plan for generalization to the natural learning environment. In addition, if the environment is not severally altered in the applied setting, as it generally is not, then results have high chances of being influenced by extraneous factors that might be difficult to identify and therefore control. Given this, clinical considerations might take precedence over attempting to reach a stable state of responding. This might be more beneficial for the client to start interventions sooner. Still, it comes with the consequence of the practitioner not being in a strong position regarding the data when trying to convince others that the intervention was the only thing that affected the target behavior (Johnson et al., 2020).
Consequently, it is not always reasonable to expect a steady state of responding before practitioners deicide to start implementing a procedure, especially in cases of severe harmful behaviors. In some cases, it may even be impossible to achieve this (Pipkin & Vollmer, 2009).
Pipkin, C. S. P., & Vollmer, T. R. (2009). Applied implications of reinforcement history effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(1), 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-83
post 1
Obtaining steady-state responses in applied research faces significant challenges, primarily due to practical and ethical concerns (Pipkin & Vollmer, 2009). Real-world constraints, such as limited timeframes within school years or ethical considerations regarding prolonged exposure to problem behavior, often hinder the feasibility of extended stabilization phases. Moreover, individual variability and external influences further complicate efforts to achieve steady-state responding. Despite its importance in understanding reinforcement history effects and treatment efficacy, expecting steady-state responding before changing conditions may not always be reasonable or possible (Pipkin & Vollmer, 2009).
Given these challenges, researchers can explore alternative approaches. One strategy involves utilizing multiple baselines across participants or behaviors to establish stable baselines before introducing experimental conditions. This method allows for comparisons within and between participants or behaviors, offering valuable insights even in the absence of immediate steady-state responding (Pipkin & Vollmer, 2009). By employing such alternative methodologies, researchers can enhance the robustness and generalizability of their findings in applied settings.
References:
Pipkin, C. St. P., & Vollmer, T. R. (2009). Applied Implications of Reinforcement History Effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-83.
Given these challenges, researchers can explore alternative approaches. One strategy involves utilizing multiple baselines across participants or behaviors to establish stable baselines before introducing experimental conditions. This method allows for comparisons within and between participants or behaviors, offering valuable insights even in the absence of immediate steady-state responding (Pipkin & Vollmer, 2009). By employing such alternative methodologies, researchers can enhance the robustness and generalizability of their findings in applied settings.
References:
Pipkin, C. St. P., & Vollmer, T. R. (2009). Applied Implications of Reinforcement History Effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-83.
post 2.
For researchers obtaining steady-state responding is critical for the results to have more reliability in terms of the intervention being the reason for the change in responding. This is important when trying to get others to believe in the effectiveness of an intervention. If data is not stable it indicates that there may be extraneous variables at play and therefore, there is less confidence that the intervention is the only cause for the changes in behavior. It is due to this that obtaining a steady state responding before changing conditions is so important for researchers. They want their published work to be reliable and repeatable when used by others (Johnson et al., 2020).
However, in applied settings, obtaining steady-state responding is not as easy. Unlike in research settings, when conducting interventions with a client, not all aspects of the environment can be pre-determined and arranged. This can lead to various problems with the intervention like if you do your best to eliminate environmental variables, then the setting is no longer the natural learning environment and leads to the learner having to be put in more restrictive environments and the practitioner having to additionally plan for generalization to the natural learning environment. In addition, if the environment is not severally altered in the applied setting, as it generally is not, then results have high chances of being influenced by extraneous factors that might be difficult to identify and therefore control. Given this, clinical considerations might take precedence over attempting to reach a stable state of responding. This might be more beneficial for the client to start interventions sooner. Still, it comes with the consequence of the practitioner not being in a strong position regarding the data when trying to convince others that the intervention was the only thing that affected the target behavior (Johnson et al., 2020).
Consequently, it is not always reasonable to expect a steady state of responding before practitioners deicide to start implementing a procedure, especially in cases of severe harmful behaviors. In some cases, it may even be impossible to achieve this (Pipkin & Vollmer, 2009).
References
Johnston, J. M., Pennypacker, H. S., & Green, G. (2020). Strategies and tactics of behavioral
research and practice (4th ed.). Routledge. https://10.4324/9781315537085
research and practice (4th ed.). Routledge. https://10.4324/9781315537085
Pipkin, C. S. P., & Vollmer, T. R. (2009). Applied implications of reinforcement history effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(1), 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-83