The 7 Dimensions of Applied Behavior Analysis PDF

Preview

Summary

Download The 7 Dimensions of Applied Behavior Analysis PDF

Description

The 7 Dimensions of Applied Behavior Analysis The article by Baer, Wolf, and Risley discusses the use of Applied Behavior Analysis and the 7 dimensions that make it up. The authors start out the article saying that they hope applied research will be a benefit to society. They put it this way: “Better application, it is hoped, will lead to a better state of society… behavioral applications, when effective, can sometimes lead to social approval and adoption” (Baer, Wolf, & Risely, 1968). They present these 7 dimensions in the hopes that these principles will aid people who are trying to make a difference through ABA. Throughout the article, the authors make distinctions between non-applied research and applied research. One difference between the two is non-applied research looks at any behavior and any variable that might possibly relate to it. It is pretty general in its scope. Applied research, on the other hand, looks at a specific behavior and only the variables that could be “effective in improving the behavior under study” (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968). Applied research looks at behaviors where they occur. Unlike an experiment or other non-applied research, applied research usually takes place in the actual social settings rather than a lab or unnatural environment. Although there are differences, both have good things about them and both can be helpful. The first dimension in the article is Applied. Simply put, this means the problem or behavior being studied is important. They are not studying useless information or as we talked about in class “party tricks.” The authors mentioned that the topic of study (behavior, stimuli, and/or organism) is chosen because of its “importance to man and society rather than their importance to theory” (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968). The goal here is to help people.

The second dimension is Behavioral. As the article says, behaviorism and pragmatism will often go together in discussion like this. This dimension includes the idea that for the research or application to be successful or valuable you need to show it works. As Brother Crossman says in class “The proof is in the pudding.” If it works, it must be true. The article says that application is achieved when the person can prove what he is able to do, not just what people say he can do. Analytic is the third dimension. Our discussion in class as well as the article point out that this dimension is about reliability. It is data driven and accurate. It also mentions a certain level of control involved by the experimenter. There are two techniques to demonstrate how reliable it is: reversal technique and multiple baseline technique. The fourth and fifth dimensions seem to go together. The fourth is technological which means everything is completely “identified and described” (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968). The rule of thumb mentioned in the article is if someone completely new to the situation came in, they could follow step by step the exact procedure and now exactly what to do and could produce the same results as the first person who did it. These procedural descriptions have a lot of detail and they try to include all possible options of what could happen. The fifth dimension then is conceptually systematic. This means things are based off of real, evidence-based practices and methods. It goes back to being able to learn and teach these things to others. If things were just made up, it would be hard to expand further. Coming in at number 6 is effective. I think the article puts it best when it says “If the application of behavioral techniques does not produce large enough effects [it] has failed” (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968). The application has to make a difference. If it didn’t, then what would be the point of doing it at all? The somewhat difficult part with this is that those who are closest to

the behavior are the ones who decide how much difference is significant. It is an individually based decision. Lastly is generality. Generality means the behavior change is durable throughout all (many) situations. The hope is that it will work in different environments, or people, or behaviors, or different times. The article mentions that the more general a behavior change is the better. This could like a person continuing good behavior even after leaving the clinic where they learned it. Overall, I would say I agree with this article. Even though it is over 50 years old, the principles or dimensions still seem to apply. I felt like the article is a little bit old-school and simple, but I think that is why it is so great. The ideas are just true and simple. It is interesting to think about other possible dimensions like doable and optimistic. I think doable is important because you have to be able to actually do the behavior! someone could draw up a brilliant behavior intervention to help someone fly, but if they can’t actually perform the behavior, like literally are incapable, there is no point to it. it seems to go along with applied and effective. Optimistic is good, because you would hope people would be changing behavior from bad to good and not good to bad, but I would argue that it shouldn’t be a dimension. I think you could change a behavior from good to bad and it could still fit all the other 7 dimensions. I don’t hope people will do such things but trying to define what is good or bad could get messy. In the beginning of the article they talk about how some things you just can’t change or manipulate like chromosome structure. Out of this whole article, I think that idea of not being able to manipulate some things is becoming less and less accurate. With the advances in technology and how far science has come, I feel like nothing is safe from experimentation anymore. The possibilities of what could be manipulated or changed are only increasing with

time. They may not all be humane or ethical, but they could be possible. The other thing I sort of disagreed with is how it had a negative vibe for non-applied research which I feel like Psychology fits under. It talked about how non-applied research looks for convenient things to study rather than important things. It also said non-applied research has an “arrogantly frequent clarity of being in control of important behaviors” (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968). These are just some thing to point out for the sake of trying to think critically, but overall I enjoyed the article and am excited to learn more about how these dimensions look in real life scenarios....