THE BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT FLOW CHART: A COMPONENT ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00041-XGet rights and content

Abstract

Representative published child behavior management research was reviewed. Based upon the review, a task analysis of child behavior management strategies was conducted. The Behavior Management Flow Chart is a flow chart of the task analysis that synthesizes the research into a cohesive unit and visually depicts actions that adults may be trained to use to manage misbehavior displayed by disruptive children. A discussion compares and contrasts the Behavior Management Flow Chart with Hanf-model behavior management programs, the appropriate unit of analysis is examined, and concerns regarding integrating a wide range of research variables into a unitary model are addressed.

Section snippets

DIDACTIC INSTRUCTION AND THE TEACHING MODEL

Prior to training BMFC strategies, adults are given didactic instruction in social learning principles germane to the treatment of disruptive childhood behavior (see McMahon et al., 1981). Technical language is used to describe the treatment rationale, and the therapeutic program is described as an adaptation of scientific research, with many of the individual components of the program having been tested (see Kazdin and Krouse, 1983). When the steps are taught to adults, the logic behind the

THE BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT FLOW CHART STEPS

The BMFC (Fig. 1) portrays the child management steps. The key in the lower lefthand box of the BMFC describes the function of each geometric figure. Rectangles represent an adult response. Diamonds represent a juncture with a yes/no option. The word or phrase in the diamond is followed by a question mark. Two lines emerge from each diamond. One line indicates that “yes,” the condition in the diamond was met and a second line indicates that “no,” the condition described was not met. Circles

STEP 2: WAIT 5 SECONDS

The child is allowed 5 seconds to initiate compliance. After presenting the command, adults remain silent and do not respond to the child's whining or arguing, repeat the command, carry out the assigned instruction themselves, or interfere with the child. Consistent with Forehand and McMahon (1981), adults ignore minor misbehavior following the presentation of a command. Ignoring is particularly important in preventing a coercive cycle from escalating. Sequential analyses of antagonistic

STEP 3: DOES THE CHILD COMPLY?

The adult determines if the child complied or not. Strain et al. (1983)reported that the probability of teacher praise following noncompliance was .06 for typical students and .14 for “less competent” students. Clinic-referred families are more likely to provide noncontingent praise and reprimands to their children than are nonclinic families (Patterson, 1976; Snyder, 1977). These data suggest that adults may need training to help them identify when a child has complied.

STEP 4: PRAISE

If the answer to Step 3 was “yes,” the child complied, then the adult verbally praises the child the moment s/he initiates compliance. The hope is to increase the probability that the compliant response will be sustained and that compliance will be initiated in the future. Adults present (a) positive nonvocal behavior (either smiling or pleasant physical contact) while they (b) vocally label the desired behavior in the context of a (c) favorable verbal comment.

STEP 5: STOP

The interaction ends.

STEP 6: REPRIMAND

If the answer to Step 3 was “no,” the child did not initiate compliance, then the adult presents a reprimand the moment 5 seconds pass.

STEP 7: WARNING ABOUT TIMEOUT

In conjunction with the Step 6 reprimand (as indicated by the bracket), the adult presents the child one warning that failure to follow directions will result in a timeout for the child. The warning labels the desired response and the timeout location the child will have to go to if they do not comply. Roberts (1982a)compared the effects of warned versus unwarned timeouts with parents of noncompliant children (mean age = of 3.7). Warned timeouts resulted in a fewer number of timeout

STEP 8: WAIT 5 SECONDS

Identical to Step 2, the child is allowed 5 seconds to initiate compliance.

STEP 9: DOES THE CHILD COMPLY?

Identical to Step 3, the adult determines if the child complied or not.

STEP 10: PRAISE

If the answer to Step 9 was “yes,” the child initiated compliance when warned about the impending timeout, the adult presents verbal praise as described in Step 4. Even though the child complied after the warning was presented, there are at least three reasons to praise the child at this juncture. First, an important impediment to timeout effectiveness may be the lack of praise and other reinforcers in the time in environment (Nelson and Rutherford, 1983). Encouraging adults not to praise when

STEP 11: STOP

The interaction ends.

STEP 12: TIMEOUT

If the answer to Step 9 was “no,” the child continued to disobey despite the warning about timeout, the adult directs the child to timeout. Over the years researchers have asserted that timeout moves an individual from a more reinforcing to a less reinforcing condition, thereby punishing behavior that leads to timeout (e.g., Kazdin, 1994; Leitenberg, 1965). Nevertheless, it has rarely been demonstrated that time in environments have more reinforcing properties than timeout environments (Drabman

STEP 13: IS THE CHILD DOING THE TIMEOUT WELL?

The adult decides if the child is completing the timeout well. The child must meet two criteria before the adult allows them to leave the timeout setting. First, the child must go to and remain in the timeout setting for a specified duration of time. The child is not allowed to determine when they may leave timeout. If the child leaves timeout then the adult immediately moves to Step 19. Second, the contingency for release is a minimum period of calm behavior at the end of the timeout that

STEP 14: TIMEOUT ENDS

If the child meets the criteria specified in Step 13, the adult tells the child what behavior they exhibited that resulted in timeout, the timeout is over, and that they may leave timeout. Release at this juncture may reinforce the calm behavior at the timeout's conclusion with a return back to the less aversive/more pleasant time in environment. Data are not sufficient to determine if the adult should label the target behavior (Gardner et al., 1976). If adults require the child to leave

STEP 15: DOES THE CHILD STILL HAVE A TASK TO COMPLETE?

After the timeout, the adult determines if the child still needs to complete the task identified in the original command from Step 1. The purpose is to prevent timeout from functioning as escape from an assigned task. In some cases the child may have been told to stop a certain behavior, and upon leaving timeout there is no required response to emit.

STEP 16: STOP

If the answer to Step 15 is “no,” no remaining tasks need completion, the interaction ends.

STEPS 17 AND 18: A COMMAND WITH A WARNING ABOUT TIMEOUT

If the answer to Step 15 is “yes,” the task needs to be completed, the adult presents a command (as in Step 1) paired with a warning that failure to comply will result in a timeout (as in Step 7). After presenting the command and the warning, adult behavior is consistent with Steps 8–12: wait 5 seconds, determine if the child complied, present praise if the child complied or timeout if they were noncompliant. The child is on a concurrent schedule (Fantino and Logan, 1979, p. 98); compliance

STEP 19: WARNING ABOUT A BACKUP CONSEQUENCE

If the answer to Step 13 is “no,” the child refuses to go to timeout or leaves timeout, then the child is warned that failure to correctly do timeout will result in a backup consequence. Timeout warnings result in fewer timeouts and less total time in timeout (Roberts, 1982a, Step 7). Perhaps similar warnings about the backup consequence would attenuate timeout resistance, resulting in fewer administrations of the backup consequence. This remains an empirical question.

STEP 20: WAIT 5–10 SECONDS

The child is given 5–10 seconds to get to the timeout location while the adult silently waits.

STEP 21: IS THE CHILD DOING THE TIMEOUT WELL?

The adult decides if the child is meeting the criteria for a successful timeout described in Step 13.

STEP 22: BACKUP CONSEQUENCE

Prior to using timeout, adults create a menu of individualized backup consequences for each child that is reviewed during the preview in Step 12. The purpose of the backup consequence is to prevent timeout refusal. If the answer to Step 21 is “no,” the child is not in timeout, then the adult immediately administers a backup consequence. Each backup is strong in hopes that it will not be administered often. If the backup is weak it may have to be frequently used (Azrin and Holz, 1966). Examples

STEP 23: IS THE ADULT WILLING TO PRESENT ANOTHER BACKUP?

After applying the backup consequence the issue the adult decides is, “Am I willing/able to give another backup consequence if the child continues to refuse timeout”?

STEP 24: TIMEOUT STARTS AGAIN

If the answer to Step 23 is “yes,” the adult is willing to present a different backup consequence if the child continues to refuse timeout, then the adult directs the child to timeout as they did in Step 12. Roberts and Powers (1990, Step 22) demonstrated that when a timeout back-up is ineffective, changing the backup can have the desired effect. Research from laboratory settings suggests that exposure to constant aversive stimuli or criticism leads to an initial weakening of the target

STEP 25: SEPARATE

If the answer to Step 23 is “no,” the adult is not willing/able to administer another backup consequence if the child continues to resist timeout, then the adult takes three steps. First, they separate the target child from others. Since the noncompliant child is unlikely to comply to commands such as “leave the room,” the adult instructs others to leave the setting. Second, the adult uses the child's name, establishes eye contact, stands within 10 feet and says, “We're going to keep working on

STEP 26: STOP

The interaction ends.

DISCUSSION

Therapy for children with disruptive behavior has shifted from therapist-to-child toward adult-to-child treatment. As more parents, teachers, and paraprofessionals become an integral part of treatment the intervention resources for disruptive children will continue to grow. However, the quantity of adults available will not be the key to success for adult-child intervention. The key will be the quality of the training programs for such adults. In response to limitations in behavior management

Acknowledgements

I greatly appreciate Mark Roberts' constructive feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript.

References (139)

  • C. Frentz et al.

    Parents acceptance of reductive treatment methods: The influence of problem severity and perception of child behavior

    Behavior Therapy

    (1986)
  • S.A. Hobbs et al.

    Effects of differential release from time-out on children's deviant behavior

    Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

    (1975)
  • S.A. Hobbs et al.

    Effects of various durations of timeout on the non-compliant behavior of children

    Behavior Therapy

    (1978)
  • R.N. Jones et al.

    Limitations of “don't” instructional control

    Behavior Therapy

    (1992)
  • A.E. Kazdin et al.

    The impact of variations in treatment rationales on expectancies for therapeutic change

    Behavior Therapy

    (1983)
  • P.C. Kendall et al.

    Timeout duration and contrast effects: A systematic evaluation of a successive treatments design

    Behavior Therapy

    (1975)
  • S.L. O'Dell et al.

    Media-assisted parent training: Alternative models

    Behavior Therapy

    (1979)
  • Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of...
  • Alberto, P.A., & Troutman, A.C. (1995). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:...
  • J. Aronfreed et al.

    Internalized behavioral suppression and the timing of social punishment

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1965)
  • Azrin, N.H., & Holz, W.C. (1966). Punishment. In W.K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application...
  • Barkley, R.A. (1987). Defiant children: A clinicians manual for parent training. New York: Guilford...
  • D. Baumrind

    Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior

    Child Development

    (1966)
  • D. Baumrind

    Authoritarian versus authoritative parental control

    Adolescence

    (1968)
  • A.W. Bean et al.

    The effect of time-out release contingencies on changes in child noncompliance

    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

    (1981)
  • Brantner, J.P., & Doherty, M.A. (1983). A review of timeout: A conceptual and methodological analysis. In S. Axelrod &...
  • K.S. Budd et al.

    An analysis of multiple misplaced parental social contingencies

    Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

    (1976)
  • R.M. Church

    The varied effects of punishment on behavior

    Psychological Review

    (1963)
  • J.D. Coie et al.

    A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys' groups

    Child Development

    (1983)
  • Danforth, J.S. (in press). The outcome of parent training using the Behavior Management Flow Chart with mothers and...
  • G.R. Davies et al.

    Verbal rationales and modeling as adjuncts to a parenting technique for child compliance

    Child development

    (1984)
  • D.E. Day et al.

    An analysis of the physical punishment component of a parent training program

    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

    (1983)
  • J.L. Deur et al.

    Effects of inconsistent punishment on aggression in children

    Developmental Psychology

    (1970)
  • R.S. Drabman et al.

    “Marking timeout” A procedure for away from home disruptive behavior

    Child Behavior Therapy

    (1979)
  • J.E. Dumas et al.

    When do noncompliant children comply? Implications for family behavior therapy

    Child & Family behavior Therapy

    (1989)
  • T.H. Eisenstadt et al.

    Parent-child interaction therapy with behavior problem children: Relative effectiveness of two stages and overall treatment outcome

    Journal of Child Clinical Psychology

    (1993)
  • Eyberg, S., & Boggs, S.R. (1989). Parent training for oppositional-defiant preschoolers. In C.E. Schaefer & J.M....
  • Fantino, E., & Logan, C.A. (1979). The experimental analysis of behavior: A biological perspective. San Francisco: W.H....
  • Forehand, R. (1977). Child noncompliance to parent commands: Behavioral analysis and treatment. In M. Hersen, R.M....
  • R. Forehand et al.

    Maternal response to child compliance and noncompliance: Some normative data

    Journal of Clinical Child Psychology

    (1978)
  • R. Forehand et al.

    Noncompliant children: Effects of parent training on behavior and attitude change

    Behavior Modification

    (1977)
  • Forehand, R.L., & McMahon, R.J. (1981). Helping the noncompliant child: A clinicians guide to parent training. New...
  • R. Forehand et al.

    Parent behavioral training to modify child noncompliance: Treatment generalization across time and from home to school

    Behavior Modification

    (1979)
  • M. Galizio

    Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: Instructional control of human loss avoidance

    Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

    (1979)
  • F.E.M. Gardner

    Inconsistent parenting: Is there evidence for a link with children's conduct problems?

    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

    (1989)
  • H.L. Gardner et al.

    Time-out with children: Effects of an explanation and brief parent training on child and parent behaviors

    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

    (1976)
  • D.L. Gast et al.

    Legal and ethical considerations for the use of timeout in special education settings

    The Journal of Special Education

    (1977)
  • J.L. Gewirtz et al.

    Deprivation and satiation of social reinforcers as drive conditions

    Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology

    (1958)
  • Graziano, A.M. (1971). Animism and modern psychotherapy. In A.M. Graziano (Ed.), Behavior therapy with children (pp....
  • Graziano, A.M. (1977). Parents as behavior therapists. In M. Hersen, R.M. Eisler, & P.M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text