Behavioral researchers may convincingly demonstrate that a given treatment variable was responsible was responsible for an observed behavior change (see Analytic section). In non-applied research, this may suffice, as for example, when a finding has great theoretical significance. However, in applied research, something else needs to be considered. As Baer et al. (1968) bluntly state: "If the application of behavioral techniques does not produce large enough effects for practical value, then application has failed" (p.96). In their follow-up article they wrote:
"We may have taught many social skills without examining whether they actually furthered the subject's social life, many courtesy skills without examining whether anyone actually noticed or cared; many safety skills without examining whether the subject was actually safer thereafter; many language skills without measuring whether the subject actually used them to interact differently than before; many on-task skills without measuring the actual value of those tasks; and, in general, many survival skills without examining the subject's actual subsequent survival." (Baer et al., 1987, p. 322)
For example, a client may complain to her marital therapist that she feels unappreciated by her husband. The therapist may suggest that she do special favors for her husband whenever he compliments her. This intervention may double or even triple her husband's appreciative statements. However, these data do not address the issue of practical effectiveness. We also need to know the answer to the question: Does she now feel more appreciated?
Applied behavioral research must be socially valid in the sense that its goals, treatment procedures, and outcomes are acceptable to the client, the therapist, and society (Bernstein, 1989; see also the Special Section in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1991, Volume 24(2), Social Validity: Multiple Perspectives Discussion Articles). The point of social validity is "to predict (and thus avoid) rejection of an intervention" (Baer et al., 1987). Schwartz & Baer (1991) provide an interesting definition of social invalidity: "the behaviors of consumers who not only disapprove of some component in the ongoing program but are going to do something about their disapproval" (p. 190).
Nonexample
Reports by classroom teachers, therapists, and teachers indicated that autistic children attending biweekly therapy sessions were unmotivated and engaged in frequent self-stimulatory behavior (e.g., rocking back and forth). It was agreed that a reasonable goal was to increase correct task responding from each child's academic curriculum (e.g., "touch your nose" versus "touch my nose"). Previous research suggested that identifying reinforcers for autistic children can be difficult, in that these children often do not respond to stimuli that interest other children (e.g., toys) or to social reinforcers (e.g., praise). The researchers were aware of the Premack Principle, which states that the opportunity to engage in a behavior that occurs frequently can be used to reinforce a behavior that occurs less often. With this in mind, the intervention included prompting the children to engage in 3-5 seconds of self-stimulation following correct task responding. This procedure produced a significant improvement in the children's academic behaviors. However, while the intervention was in effect, the teachers reported an increase in self-stimulation at school and the parents reported the same sort of increase at home. Both teachers and parents appealed to the school administrator, who then ordered the researchers to stop their program.
Example
Reports by classroom teachers, therapists, and teachers indicated that autistic children attending biweekly therapy sessions were unmotivated and engaged in frequent self-stimulatory behavior (e.g., rocking back and forth). It was agreed that a reasonable goal was to increase correct task responding from each child's academic curriculum (e.g., "touch your nose" versus "touch my nose"). Previous research suggested that identifying reinforcers for autistic children can be difficult, in that these children often do not respond to stimuli that interest other children (e.g., toys) or to social reinforcers (e.g., praise). The researchers were aware of the Premack Principle, which states that the opportunity to engage in a behavior that occurs frequently can be used to reinforce a behavior that occurs less often. With this in mind, the intervention included prompting the children to engage in 3-5 seconds of self-stimulation following correct task responding. This procedure produced a significant improvement in the children's academic behaviors. The teachers and parents approved of the goals of the program and were pleased with the outcome. Self-stimulation did not increase at school or at home during the intervention phase. These positive findings resulted in the school administrator ordering a continuance of the program into the next school year.
Analysis
The first item is not an example of an effective behavior change program. It is consistent with Schwartz & Baer's (1991) definition of social invalidity: the parents not only disapproved of the program but took action in order to remove it from the school curriculum. Their response seems justified, given the negative side-effects of the intervention.
The example in the second item appears to be effective with respect to socially validity. We assume that a child mastering her academic curriculum prepares her better to function in the real world. The procedure employed to achieve this goal had no reported negative side-effects (consistent with the results reported in the Related Source). The acceptability of the intervention is seen in teachers' and the parents' positive evaluations of it and the fact that the school administrator was impressed enough to order its extended use.
Related Source: Charlop, Kurtz, & Casey (1990)