Lag sequential analysis of individual interactions was explored as a tool to generate hypotheses regarding the social control of inappropriate classroom behavior of students with severe behavior disorders. Four single subject experiments with two students who displayed high rates of disruptive behavior in special education classrooms were completed using lag sequential analysis to identify antecedent and subsequent social events that were significantly related to their disruptive behavior. Three coded events (student handraise, teacher attention, and the “stop code”) were identified as highly related to the students' disruptive behavior. Three of the four experiments were successful in reducing the students' disruptive behavior by prescribing treatment based upon the lag sequential analysis. The results of these experiments indicated that the lag sequential analysis procedure is potentially a useful tool, but additional research is needed. The results are discussed in terms of the usefulness of the analysis procedures in contributing to the functional analysis of students' classroom behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achenbach, T.M., & Edelbrock, C.E. (1988). Teacher's report form of the child behavior checklist. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
2.
Ayllon, T., & Roberts, M.D. (1974). Eliminating discipline problems by strengthening academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 71–76.
3.
Bakeman, R., Adamson, L.B., & Strisik, P. (1989). Lags and logs: Statistical approaches to interaction. In M.H. Bornstein & J.S. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human developmen. (pp. 244–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
Bakeman, R., & Brownlee, J.R. (1980). The strategic use of parallel play: A sequential analysis. Child Development, 51, 873–878.
5.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J.M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1976). Assertive discipline. Los Angeles: Canter.
7.
Carr, E.G., Robinson, S., & Palumbo, L.W. (1990). The wrong issue: Aversive vs. non-aversive treatment. The right issue: Functional vs. nonfunctional treatment. In A.C. Repp & N.N. Singh (Eds.), Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilitie. (pp. 361–379). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
8.
Deitz, S.M., Repp, A.C., & Deitz, D.E.D. (1976). Reducing inappropriate classroom behavior of retarded students through three procedures of differential reinforcement. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 20, 155–170.
9.
Iwata, B.A., Vollmer, T.R., & Zarcone, J.R. (1990). The experimental (functional) analysis of behavior disorders: Methodology, application, and limitations. In A.C. Repp & N.N. Singh (Eds.), Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilitie. (pp. 301–330). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
10.
Maheady, L., & Sainato, D.M. (1984). Social interaction patterns of high and low status behaviorally disordered students within self-contained classroom settings: A pilot investigation. Behavioral Disorders, 10, 20–26.
11.
Moore, S.R., & Simpson, R.L. (1983). Teacher-pupil and peer verbal interactions of learning disabled, behavior-disordered, and nonhandicapped students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 273–282.
12.
Reid, J.B. (1986). Social interactional patterns in families of abused and nonabused children. In C. Zahn-Waxler, M. Cummings, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Social and biologicalorigins of altruism and aggressio. (pp. 238–255). New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Repp, A.C., & Deitz, D.E.D. (1979). Reinforcement-based reductive procedures: Training and monitoring performance of institutional staff. Mental Retardation, 17, 221–226.
14.
Repp, A.C., Deitz, S.M., & Deitz, D.E.D. (1976). Reducing inappropriate behaviors in classrooms and individual sessions through DRO schedules of reinforcement. Mental Retardation, 14, 11–15.
15.
Shores, R.E. (1987). Overview of research on social interactions: A historical and personal perspective. Behavioral Disorder., 223–241.
16.
Shores, R.E., Gunter, P.L., & Jack, S.L. (1993). Classroom management strategies: Are they setting events for coercion?Behavioral Disorder., 18, 92–102.
17.
Shores, R.E., Jack, S.L., Gunter, P.L., Ellis, D.N., DeBriere, T.J., & Wehby, J.H. (1993). Analysis of classroom interactions of children with aggressive behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 27–39.
18.
Simpson, R.L., & Souris, L.A. (1988). Reciprocity in the pupil-teacher interactions of autistic and mildly handicapped preschool children. Behavioral Disorder., 159–168.
19.
Snyder, J., & Patterson, G.R. (1986). Effects of consequences on patterns of social interaction: A quasi-experimental approach to reinforcement in natural interaction. Child Development, 59, 1257–1268.
20.
Sprick, R.S. (1981). The solution book: A guide to classroom discipline. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
21.
Tremblay, A., Strain, P.S., Hendrickson, J.M., & Shores, R.E. (1981). Social interactions of normal preschool children. Behavior Modification, 5, 237–253.
22.
Wacker, D., Steege, M., Northup, J., Reimers, T., Berg, W., & Sasso, G. (1990). Use of functional analysis and acceptability measures to assess and treat severe behavior problems: An outpatient clinic model. In A.C. Repp & N.N. Singh (Eds.), Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilitie. (pp. 349–359). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
23.
Weeks, M., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1981). Task difficulty and aberrant behavior in severely handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 463–499.
