THE BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT FLOW CHART: A COMPONENT ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
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)
- et al.
Effectiveness of delayed punishment in an applied setting
Behavior Therapy
(1990) - et al.
The relative impact of long and short reprimands on children's off-task behavior in the classroom
Behavior Therapy
(1988) - et al.
Effects of consistent and inconsistent feedback on inappropriate child behavior
Behavior Therapy
(1988) - et al.
Training parents as behavior therapists: A review
Behavior Research and Therapy
(1972) - et al.
The effects of labeled and unlabeled praise upon lower and middle class children
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
(1975) - et al.
Observations of parent-child interactions with hyperactive children: Research and clinical implications
Clinical Psychology Review
(1991) - et al.
Social isolation as a punishment procedure: A controlled study
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
(1973) - et al.
A comparison of four instructional techniques for teaching parents to use timeout
Behavior Therapy
(1979) - et al.
Mother-child interactions: Comparison of a non-compliant clinic group and a non-clinic group
Behavioral Research and Therapy
(1975) - et al.
An examination of disciplinary procedures with children
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
(1976)