Measuring Implicit and Explicit Acceptability of Reinforcement Versus Punishment Interventions with Teachers Working in ABA Versus Mainstream Schools

Kelly, Michelle E. and Barnes-Holmes, Dermot (2015) Measuring Implicit and Explicit Acceptability of Reinforcement Versus Punishment Interventions with Teachers Working in ABA Versus Mainstream Schools. The Psychological Record, 65 (2). pp. 251-265. ISSN 2163-3452

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

This research aimed to develop the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) as a measure of treatment acceptability and to assess teachers’ acceptability of reinforcement and punishment interventions in the presence of “good” and “bad” behaviors. Participants included 15 teachers trained in ABA (ABATs) who worked with children with developmental disabilities, and 15 teachers trained in mainstream primary education (MTs) who worked with typically developing children. On the IRAP, the ABAT group showed proreinforcement biases for all behaviors, while MTs showed a proreinforcement bias for good behavior but a propunishment bias for bad behavior. On explicit measures of acceptability, although both groups showed proreinforcement and antipunishment biases, the ABATs rated reinforcement as significantly more acceptable than the MTs; the ratings of punishment did not differ across the two groups. The research provides support for the IRAP as a measure of treatment acceptability.

Item Type:	Article
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > Psychology L Education > LB Theory and practice of education > LB1501 Primary Education B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > Psychology > Child psychology
Divisions:	School of Business > Staff Research and Publications
Depositing User:	Caoimhe Ní Mhaicín
Date Deposited:	09 Oct 2017 12:33
Last Modified:	09 Oct 2017 12:33
URI:	https://norma.ncirl.ie/id/eprint/2608

Actions (login required)

View Item