Elopement is a top problem in many schools, residential facilities, and private homes. Whether the population is children or adults, elopement and its sub-categories can be both time-consuming and dangerous for staff and the individuals they serve. This presentation focuses not just on the setting events and maintaining variables responsible for elopement, but on the functional sub-categories which include running from aversives, running to access reinforcers (locations/people/activities/tangibles), running to access “being chased” as a reinforcer and running as “confrontation seeking” (the reinforcer is not the chasing per se, but staff going “hands on” and the ensuing struggle and signs of damage). There will also be a focus on the variants of elopement which include wandering (in the right room, but moving all around the room almost constantly), out of area (not wandering around, but in the wrong place), and out of seat. Guidelines will be presented for differentially diagnosing the sort of elopement problem as well as some treatment directions.
In a continuation from the pre-Covid world, this seminar will focus on how people can theoretically misuse logic (incorrect rule following) to create and perpetuate a stereotype. Incorrect logic is often used to explain perceived causes of ANY mismatch in the proportions of any groups of people or objects. This talk will focus on the variables that control our use of the word mostly‚ or disproportionate. That there is more of one group than another in any given situation doesn’t automatically mean that there are biases operating to cause and maintain these different proportions, but there always could be biases operating, and when resources, rights, access and fairness are on the line we must be vigilant for multiple sources of bias operating at the societal level, the individual level, at point of access/escape (obtain services/avoid jail). These biases that can cause disproportionality could be historical factors that steer us one way or another on our path at critical moments, and/or they may not affect us until the point of contact, so these variables can be cumulative (telling someone who they should or should not try to become) or almost instantaneous, at the point of contact like extreme bias or even overt racism or one of the other “isms.” The seminar will finish with the concept of avatars and how they relate to hate crimes and how hate crimes are related to terrorism (our inability to feel safe even when we are law abiding citizens).
Although yours may not truly suck, it possibly could do with some improvements…As the old saying goes, there’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip, and the same is true of behavior plans. From initial assessment and writing, to staff training and revisions, there are numerous wrong turns where your well laid (behavior) plan can easily meet an untimely end in the back of a filing cabinet where it won’t see the light of day again until it’s survey time. As Dr. Ogden Lindsley used to say, let’s not spend our time “playing with pencils” writing plans that won’t ultimately improve lives. Topics not only include how to improve the standard parts of a plan, but an in-depth look at how all the gears must mesh to produce quick and lasting behavior change.
In the laboratory, if a pigeon receives food more than a few seconds after pecking an illuminated disc, it will never learn to key peck to get food. This is a characteristic of reinforcement. It's instantaneous when it occurs as a natural phenomenon. When we set up artificial long-term reinforcement contingencies, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING! "Do your homework now, and you'll get video games later tonight" describes a reinforcement contingency, but behavior motivated by this description is rule-governed behavior with a special learning history. The thrust of the presentation is that rules describing reinforcement contingencies is NOT the same as real-time reinforcement and the stimuli that maintain problem behavior ARE real-time reinforcement.
Way back in 1972 (when behavior analysis was groovy) A. Charles Catania wrote a seminal article debunking the misconception of "self-reinforcement." The disputed portion is the reinforcement part, and not so much the "self" part. Yes, you "did it yourself," but simply moving 20 bucks from your right pocket (savings) to your left pocket (checking) so you can spend it isn't positive reinforcement! Are we doomed? Can we do nothing to help change our own behavior? We sure can, but it ain't through "self-reinforcement." The presentation will hit on key points from Dr. Catania's original article as well a review from a few studies claiming to demonstrate self-reinforcement. There will also be a discussion of behavior that we can do that will increase the likelihood of later behavior...
This presentation focuses on the role of the expert witness in litigation both in general and as it pertains to the practice of behavior analysis. Being an expert witness is a challenging, rewarding, and lucrative endeavor. It requires careful reading, writing, and communication skills and is NOT for the faint of heart. The presentation will cover topics such as types of experts, how one qualifies as an expert, and your responsibilities as a behavior analyst and expert witness. There will also be a brief review of the various tasks of the expert witness, including but not limited to 1) initial case consultation (are you right for the case?), 2) review of the complaint. 3) providing a fee schedule, vitae and receiving your retainer fee, 4) record review, 5) consultation 6) writing an opinion, 7) giving depositions, and 8) testifying in open court.