Unit 12 Service Learning Project Written Assignment Assessment-Based Intervention Project, Part 1

docx

School

University of Central Florida *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

541

Subject

Psychology

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

5

Uploaded by AgentPuppy3534

Report
The client for this service-learning project is identified as SoTh and will referred to by that acronym or ‘client’ to protect their privacy and for other confidentiality purposes. SoTh is 26-year-old southeast Asian male. He is married, of middle income, holds a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering and works in the same field as a systems engineer. The client is the partner of the therapist running the project (CrSu), and both live together in Orlando, Florida. The client’s primary language is English & Hindi, and the medium of all assessments was conducted in the first one. The client’s longtime friend RaBh and CrSu were included in this SLP to partake in completing and helping with indirect assessments. According to both CrSu and RaBh the client had been a smoker since age 15 and switched over to vaping around 23 years of age. They report that the client has primarily been working from home and has had a steady increase in the frequency of his vaping behavior since the onset of the pandemic. When left alone for long periods of time or when someone stops attending to him, he also engages in the behavior. The client has not been diagnosed with any psychological or physical ailments and is said to be in good to moderate health at the onset of this SLP. The behavior targeted for decrease is vaping. It is operationally defined as; For the purpose of this SLP, vaping is defined as inhaling and exhaling vape or vape products in any form which passes the vape vapor in and out of the lungs. Using a vape pen and inhaling the vapor in to the mouth with air coming out of the mouth or the nostrils. The client needs to engage in at least one puff of the vape pen in order for it to count as vaping behavior. Duration of engaging in vaping behavior is not a factor since each instance is being counted not the duration. Intensity of the behavior is also not counted due to the whole act of vaping being a continuous process without change of intention midway. Things that do not count as vaping include touching the vape pen looking at it or touching it to your mouth but not inhaling the vapor.
The therapist can conduct a preference assessment to determine the hierarchy of preferred items for the client. A multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) will be done on the client since he is able to adequately select preferred items amongst an array of items. He also has prerequisite skills such as consistent selection, no problem behavior when items removed etc. The MSWO can help indicate the preference levels for each item that may be given to client, with the exploration of potential stimuli on the levels of high, medium, and low preference. The reinforcer assessment is then able to utilize the data gathered from the preference assessment and use it contingent that the aberrant behavior occurs. If the client responds to the reinforcement in a manner consistent with the assessment, then the reinforcer can be considered effective. A multiple schedule reinforcer assessment two stimuli are compared across two individual sessions with the same schedule of reinforcement. There is a signal that indicates that the reinforcer is present during that session and that is known as the SD. The session with the highest rate of responding is the one where the most effective reinforcer is. The client was also put under a series of assesments to understand the function of his behavior. Following acceptable methods of collecting data on clients, both indirect and descriptive assesments were done in order to identify key features of this clietns vaping behavior. The assesments focused on how can we measure, and what are the functions that maintain vaping behavior for SoTh. Upon analyzing the information from his FBA, the client is seen frequently engaging in vaping behavior during the entire day. One of the key factors for this could be the workload and demand placed on the client. The client self reported that social interaction and work demands significatnlky increase his vaping behavior and biological contributors or other physical variables do not.
The client was also assessed through the Motivation Assesment scale (MAS) which indicated that the clients maintaining function for vaping is sensory with a score of 22. Other notable functions of this behavior are attention, escape both within the range of 10-11.Tangible was the least in all four of the functions with a score of two, which is why it is ruled out as possible function going forward. On the FBAI the client mentions some replacement behaviors such as meditation and yoga for his vaping behaviors however these behaviors are not always able to be completed by the client due to the nature of his work, also the time where he vapes the most. He does however mention that if he was kept accountable for his actions or vaping behavior then he might be more prone to stop ewnenaging in that behavior. Using the Functional Behavior Assesment (FBA) form it was seen that the setting events for most vaping occurred with either chilling (relaxing) or working. The antetcedents were covered over a wider range and the results indicate that being alone, working, stress and seeing a vape pen are some of the things that trigger vaping behavior in the order listed. Often the consequence of then enaging in vaping behavior gives the client two out three things, one the clent is less stressed and two the client is remorsefull for enagagin in the behavior. Using the ABC recording chart I looked at different settings such as working, attending meetings, leisure time, time with friends, and alone for two whole days. The data gathered showcases the majority of vaping behavior occurs whenever the client is in meetings or working and when the client is with friends or in a position where others display vaping behavior. The following was observed on 05/26 /22 at 9:02 am, during the clients workday he received a call from his supervisor, which triggered the need to vape. The need was followed up with the behavior itself. Client vaped two puffs as soon as they opened their laptop. The consequence here was that they got access to both
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
their need being satisfied and to the vape pen itself; since this automatically reinforcing behavior has not been challenged in any shape or form, it keeps on being reinforced. Currently the client is on no program to help curb his vaping behavior however an incentivized program will be developed in the future to help the client combat this. This would in the form of a token economy which the client can utilize throughout the day. Redner et al. (2018) identified through their research that financial incentives can be utilized and are highly effective in promoting abstinence from cigarette smoking, as seen by one participant whereby upon the introduction of incentives, cigarette smoking was reduced to a near-zero level. With the same idea of application in mind, I will be formulating a schedule for my client to consider as the SLP moves further along.
Redner, R., Robertson, N., & Lo, S. (2018). Application of a brief incentive treatment for cigarette smoking. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11(2), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-0240-1