4.7 Behavior Acquisition Case Lab

Integrated Teaching Under Supervision

This case lab ties together the behavior acquisition procedures from the chapter. The client, Jordan, is a school-age learner receiving supervised behavior-analytic services in a clinic and home program. Jordan's current acquisition goals include requesting help, identifying safety signs, completing a short independent work routine, and using a token economy during table instruction. Jordan also has maintenance goals for labeling common household items and greeting familiar adults. The RBT is not designing these goals.

The RBT is assigned to implement the programs, collect data, and report objective observations to the supervisor.

Before the session, the RBT reviews the written plan. The token economy uses five tokens for two minutes with a selected activity. Tokens are earned for independent correct responses during DTT and for independent help requests during natural routines. Prompted responses receive brief praise but no token. The DTT program targets discrimination of restroom, exit, and stop signs. The naturalistic program targets help requests when Jordan encounters a difficult container, stuck zipper, or missing material. The maintenance program includes a five-item household label probe and one greeting probe at arrival.

The plan includes prompt hierarchies, response windows, reinforcement schedules, and data codes.

At arrival, Jordan looks at the RBT but does not say hello. The maintenance probe allows a five-second wait and then a model prompt if no response occurs. The RBT waits, Jordan waves, and the RBT records an independent greeting if the operational definition includes a wave. If the definition requires a vocal greeting, the RBT records according to that definition instead of personal preference. This is a small but important point: data must match the written response definition.

During DTT, the RBT presents restroom, exit, and stop signs. Jordan correctly touches stop twice when it appears in different positions. Jordan misses exit when it appears with restroom. The RBT follows the error correction procedure and records the errors by stimulus. After two independent correct responses, Jordan earns two tokens. On the third independent correct response, the RBT delays token delivery while writing notes and then remembers 20 seconds later. That delay is a fidelity issue. The RBT should not hide it.

The RBT can mark the data accurately if the system allows and report, Token delivery was delayed approximately 20 seconds after trial 7 due to data entry. Honest fidelity reporting helps the supervisor interpret the data.

In the work routine, Jordan zips a pencil pouch halfway and then looks at the RBT. The naturalistic target is help. The RBT waits three seconds. Jordan says, Help please. The RBT immediately helps loosen the zipper and gives a token because the plan includes tokens for independent help requests. This is both naturalistic teaching and reinforcement. The reinforcer is functionally related because asking for help produces help. The token is an additional conditioned reinforcer because the plan says to strengthen the response across contexts.

A complication occurs when Jordan's selected backup activity, a train set, is missing pieces. Jordan pushes the token board away. The RBT should not remove tokens, threaten loss of the board, or offer an unapproved phone video. The RBT should follow the plan for unavailable backup items, if one exists. If the plan allows an approved alternative menu, the RBT offers it calmly. If not, the RBT seeks supervisor or senior staff direction according to workplace procedures.

The RBT records objective events: Jordan earned five tokens, selected trains, trains were unavailable due to missing pieces, Jordan pushed board approximately 12 inches, no aggression occurred, alternative puzzle accepted after staff direction.

A case-lab escalation checklist:

• Was the written plan unclear or impossible to implement as written?
• Was a programmed reinforcer unavailable or ineffective?
• Did the client show a new error pattern, prompt dependence, or loss of previously maintained skill?
• Did the RBT accidentally deliver reinforcement late, noncontingently, or at the wrong magnitude?
• Did a caregiver or team member request a change outside the plan?
• Did setting events such as illness, schedule change, noise, or missing materials affect responding?
• Is there any concern involving dignity, assent, confidentiality, or safety that requires immediate reporting?

Later, a caregiver asks whether Jordan can start learning to answer the phone because the family needs that skill. The RBT should not add a phone-answering goal during the session. The RBT can say that the supervisor can review that request and then document or relay it according to workplace procedures. The RBT can still implement current related programs, such as greetings or help requests, but does not expand the curriculum independently.

At the end of the session, the RBT reviews data. Sign discrimination was 7 of 12 independent correct, with 4 of 5 errors involving exit. Help requests were 3 of 4 independent and 1 gestural prompted. The greeting probe was independent if wave met the written definition, or not independent if it did not. The token system was completed twice, with one exchange disrupted by unavailable materials. These details are more useful than a broad note saying Jordan did well but had trouble with signs.

The case lab shows how behavior acquisition is integrated. Reinforcement affects motivation and future responding. Conditioned reinforcers and token economies organize delayed outcomes. DTT provides clean, repeated trials for discrimination. Naturalistic teaching connects communication to real routines. Maintenance probes check whether learned skills remain available. The RBT's professional judgment is not to invent new procedures, but to keep implementation clean, notice when reality interferes with the plan, collect data that preserve the truth of the session, and communicate promptly with the supervisor.