As noted, applied behavioral researchers seek to demonstrate that the treatment variable was responsible for improving the target behavior (see Analytic section) and that the outcome was socially significant (see Effective section). Another criterion for evaluating the outcome of treatment is generality: does the behavior change maintain over time, appear in a wide variety of desirable situations, and spread to other related desirable behaviors (Baer et al., 1968)? For example, a time-out procedure implemented at home may suffice to eliminate a child's tantrums. Questions about generality would include: Is this change permanent, in that child's tantrums do not begin reoccurring a few months later? Is the child less likely to have tantrums outside of the home? Is the child less likely to engage in other undesirable behaviors, such as teasing his little sister? A yes answer to any of these questions should not be "expected" and a no answer should not be "lamented." A failure to demonstrate generality is not indicative of an unsuccessful treatment variable. The key is to test for behavior change whenever, wherever, and however it is desired; if it is not observed, then the treatment variable should be applied in that new context. There are a variety of strategies for programming for generality (Stokes & Baer, 1977).
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 at school. Unfortunately, the children were unable to respond correctly when their parents asked them the same types of questions at home.
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 at school. Unfortunately, the children were unable to respond correctly when their parents asked them the same types of questions at home. However, when the parents were taught to implement the training procedure at home, the children's behavior improved to the same extent that it had at school. After that, similar improvements were noted when other persons asked the questions (e.g., grandparents) outside of the home, with the only consequence of correct responding being social praise.
Analysis
The first item lacks generality because the behavior change did not occur at home, obviously a desirable outcome. The researchers should program for generality. One strategy would be to teach the children at home, and then test for behavior change in yet a third setting (e.g., at grandma's). If it occurs, then generality has been demonstrated; if not, then teach the children in that third setting, and test for behavior change in yet a fourth setting (e.g., at aunt & uncle's). This train-and-test procedure would be repeated until the intervention has been applied in enough settings to promote generality to a new one (a strategy called "train sufficient stimulus exemplars" - see Martin & Pear, Chapter 12; see also Stokes & Baer, 1977).
The second item is an example of generality. At first, the children were unable to respond correctly when their parents asked them the same types of questions at home. However, by implementing the training procedure at their residence, the parents were able to improve the target behaviors in that setting. Possibly as a result of this extra intervention, the children then proved capable of performing the behaviors when other persons asked the questions (e.g., grandparents) outside of the home, even though training had yet to be conducted in those new situations. This result illustrates generality. It is also important to note that the behavior change was observed even when the programmed consequence (3-5 seconds of self-stimulation) was not administered. Perhaps the natural consequence of making correct responses to everyday questions sufficed to maintain the target behaviors (a phenomenon called a "behavior trap" -- see Martin & Pear, Chapter 12; see also Stokes & Baer, 1977).
Related Source: Charlop, Kurtz, & Casey (1990)