What have several researchers suggested as a contributor to the onset and maintenance of feeding problems?

Answer the following questions based off the reading in the link attached:
https://we.tl/t-WzoWzpwBae
Bachmeyer, M. H. (2009). Treatment of selective and inadequate food intake in children: A review and practical guide. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2(1), 43–50.
1. What is the prevalence of feeding problems in typically developing children and children with developmental delays? (p. 1)
2. What have several researchers suggested as a contributor to the onset and maintenance of feeding problems? (p. 1)
3. What is the most commonly used intervention for feeding problems?
4. Describe the following procedures for feeding problems: (p. 2)
a. Positive reinforcement
b. Escape extinction (EE)
c. Non-removal of the spoon (NRS)
d. Physical guidance (PG)
5. Why are escape extinction procedures not ideal for treatment programs conducted in natural settings or by inexperienced behavior change agents? (p. 2)
6. What does DRA for feeding problems involve? What are the factors that influence whether positive reinforcement will compete with an ongoing escape contingency for food refusal? (p. 4)
7. Describe NCR for feeding problems. (p. 5)
8. Describe the following antecedent-based procedures:
a. Simultaneous presentation (p. 5)
b. Stimulus fading (p. 5)
c. High-probability instructional sequence (p. 6)
9. What should practitioners do if children demonstrate refusal to gain access to foods that are relatively more preferred, and what is one limitation of this strategy? (p. 6)
10. What should practitioners do when considering the use of preferred foods as reinforcers for consumption of less preferred foods? (p. 6)
11. Why should simultaneously presenting or blending more preferred foods or drinks with less preferred foods be done with caution? (p. 6)
12. What should practitioners do if highly preferred foods cannot be identified or do not function as reinforcers? (p. 6)
Penrod, B., Gardella, L., & Fernand, J. (2012). An evaluation of a progressive high-probability instructional sequence combined with low-probability demand fading in the treatment of food selectivity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 527–537.
1. How is food selectivity conceptualized? (p. 1)
2. What is the high-probability instructional sequence? (p. 2)
3. What is demand fading? (pp. 2–3)
4. What is the purpose of the current study? (p. 3)
5. What design was used in this study? (p. 4)
6. Describe the dependent variables in this study. (p. 4)
7. Describe the following treatment components: (pp. 5–7)
a. Pretreatment preference assessment
b. Baseline
c. Instructional procedure
d. Posttreatment assessment
e. Follow-up
8. How was food refusal defined? (p. 5)
9. Describe the order of the instructional sequence introduced across phases. (p. 6)
10. What were the findings of this study, and what do they suggest about antecedent-based treatments for food selectivity? (pp. 7–9)
11. What was an important finding of the current study, and why is this promising? (p. 10)
12. What are the limitations in this study that should be addressed by future research? (pp. 10–11)
13. What is one possible mechanism that may have accounted for the behavior change? (p. 11)
Piazza, C., Patel, M., Gulotta, C., Sevin, B., & Layer, S. (2003). On the relative contributions of positive reinforcement and escape extinction in the treatment of food refusal. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 309–324.
1. What is escape extinction? (p. 1)
2. What questions are raised by the results of studies on the treatment of feeding disorders regarding the effectiveness of positive reinforcement and escape extinction? (pp. 2–3)
3. What is the purpose of this study? (p. 3)
4. How were children selected for participation in this study? (p. 3)
5. Describe the dependent variables in this study. (p. 3)
6. What design(s) were used within this study? (p. 4)
7. Describe the following procedures:
a. Escape baseline
b. DRA plus escape
c. Escape extinction
d. DRA plus escape extinction
e. Follow-up
8. Describe the results with regard to the effectiveness of positive reinforcement. (p. 10)
9. When did consumption increase? (p. 10)
10. Under what conditions was positive reinforcement effective for some participants? (p. 10)
11. What are some reasons that the positive reinforcement treatments may have been ineffective? (p. 13)
12. Explain why the authors state that the extent to which nonremoval of the spoon or physical guidance functioned as escape extinction is unknown. (p. 14)
13. What are the conclusions of this investigation? (p. 14)
Ahearn, W. H., Kerwin, M. L. E., Eicher, P. S., Shantz, J., & Swearingin, W. (1996). An alternating treatments comparison of two intensive interventions for food refusal. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 321–332.
1. Describe the two interventions that have been documented to be effective for food refusal. (p. 1)
2. What is the rationale for the study (i.e., What does the selection of an appropriate treatment depend on?), and what is the purpose of this study? (p. 2)
3. Describe the dependent variables in the study: (p. 3)
a. Acceptance
b. Expulsion
c. Negative vocalizations
d. Disruptions
e. Self-injurious behavior
4. Describe what a trial looks like: (p. 3)
a. What initiated the trial?
b. What ended the trial, and what were the exceptions to this?
5. Describe baseline procedures. What happened contingent on acceptance or refusal of food? (p. 4)
6. Describe the following: (p. 4)
a. Nonremoval of the spoon
b. Physical guidance
7. Describe some components of the parent selection of treatment and withdrawal. Explain why this is of utmost importance, especially when implementing escape extinction. (p. 4)
8. When were follow-up probes conducted and how frequently? (p. 5)
9. What were the findings of this study?
10. Describe the confound that there might have been multiple treatment interference. (p. 9)
11. Describe the difference in corollary behavior between physical guidance and nonremoval of the spoon. (p. 10)

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *