Developing and transferring behavioral technologies for children and youth

Developing and transferring behavioral technologies for children and youth

Ch,ldren and Your/, &mm R~i’rrm, \ 01. 3. pp. 319-342. Prmred I” the LISA. All nghts rexned. 1981 Copyright 0190-7409/x11040319-24$2.0010 @ 1981 l’e...

2MB Sizes 0 Downloads 72 Views

Ch,ldren and Your/, &mm R~i’rrm, \ 01. 3. pp. 319-342. Prmred I” the LISA. All nghts rexned.

1981 Copyright

0190-7409/x11040319-24$2.0010 @ 1981 l’ergamon Press Ltd.

Developing and Transferring Behavioral Technologies for Children and Youth Stephen B. Fawcett, Tom Seekins, and Curtis J. Braukmann University of Kansas

Behavioral researchers have developed a variety of technologies for improving the capacities of children and their caregivers. Despite the availability of behavioral technologies for children and youth, their widespread adoption and sustained use has been limited. Characteristics for appropriate (e.g., sustainable, effective) technologies for children and youth are suggested here, and strategies for research and development of these methods are described. This paper outlines the process of transferring behaviorial technologies including the phases of awareness, interest, assessment, trial, implementation, maintenance, and reinvention. Finally, issues implicit in the process of transferring behavioral technologies for children and youth are discussed.

Attempts to improve the welfare of children and youth have included legislative action (e.g., P.L. 94-142, Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975), judicial action (e.g., in re Gault, 1968)‘) formulation of child rights (e.g., Joint Commission on the Mental Health of Children, 1969), calls for child advocacy (e.g., Shore, 1979), and research and development of treatment methods for childhood problems (e.g., Schaefer 8c Millman, 1977). Some research and development efforts result in replicable methodssometimes called “behavioral technologies”-for improving the repertoires of children and youth and their caregivers (Kazdin, 1979). Requests for reprints may be addressed to Stephen B. Fawcett, Development, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045. ‘In re kault, 387, U.S. i (1967).

319

Department

of Human

320

Fawcett, Seekins, and Braukmann

Advances in the development of behavioral technologies have occurred in a number of areas including childhood fears and avoidance reactions (Johnson 8c Melamed, 1979; Ollendick, 1979), social behaviors (Michelson ACWood, 1980), habit disorders (e.g., enuresis among older children, Doleys, 1978), academic performance and school conduct (Copeland 8c Hall, 1976; O’Leary 8c O’Leary, 1976), conduct problems (Forehand, 1977; Wahler, 1976), juvenile delinquency (Braukmann & Fixsen, 1975; Burchard & Harig, 1976), mental retardation (Birnbrauer, 1976), and autism and childhood schizophrenia (Lovaas & Newsom, 1976). These technologies for changing behavior have been applied and evaluated in a variety of settings including natural homes, schools, clinics, day-care centers, hospitals, and group care facilities (Journal of’ Applied Behax~ior Analysis, 196% 1980). Similarly, there are developing methods for sharing behavioral technologies with individuals in the child’s environment. For example, there have been research and development efforts involv:ing training parents to remediate many child problems (Graziano, 1977), training teachers to improve deportment and academic performance of students (Copeland & Hall, 1976; Kazdin & Moyer, 1976; O’Leary & O’Leary, 1976), and training child care workers to engage in effective and preferred treatment interactions (Kirigin, Ayala, Braukmann, Brown, Minkin, Fixsen, Phillips, & Wolf, 1975; Willner, Braukmann, Kirigin, Fixsen, Phillips, & Wolf, 1977). However, despite the growing number of apparently effective behavioral technologies relevant to children and youth, their adoption has been limited. Further, where a behavioral technology has been carried out, it has been often under the direct supervision of skilled applied researchers whose involvement in implementation cannot be sustained (Fawcett, Mathews, & Fletcher, 1980). Thus, it appears that effective methods for disseminating current practices on a wide scale are not (as yet) well developed (Kazdin, 1979). The purpose of this paper is to discuss several considerations relevant to the research, the development, and, especially, the dissemination of behavioral technologies for children and youth. Types of Behavioral

Technologies

The development of behavioral technologies for children and their caregivers has often involved the broader research and application methods of the field of “applied behavior analysis” (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968). To study socially important behaviors and ways to improve them, the field of applied behavior analysis uses

Developing and Transferring Technologies

321

single subject experimental designs, direct observations of behaviors, and increasingly, social validation procedures (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Wolf, 1978). Three types of intervention-instructional procedures, behavior management methods, and environmental design intervention-constitute the bulk of the field’s contributions to a technology of child and caregiver behavior change. Instructional procedures are those that use behavioral teaching methods (Bandura, 1969), such as behavioral specifications, rationales for behavior, modeling, shaping (reinforcing successive approximations to desired behavior), behavior rehearsal, and feedback, to produce new behaviors of relevance to children, parents, caregivers, and society (e.g., Fawcett, Fletcher, & Mathews, 1980). Examples include methods designed to (1) help young children share and praise (Barton & Ascione, 1979; Rogers-Warren 8c Baer, 1976), use correct sentence structure (Lutzker 8c Sherman, 1974), develop athletic skills (Allison & Ayllon, 1980), and practice pedestrian safety skills (Yeaton & Bailey, 1978); (2) teach adolescents to improve their conversational skills (Minkin, Braukmann, Minkin, Timbers, Timbers, Fixsen, Phillips, & Wolf, 1976) and job interview skills (Braukmann, Maloney, Fixsen, Phillips, & Wolf, 1974; Kelly, Wildman, & Berler, 1980); (3) teach parents to improve their children’s behavior on shopping trips (Barnard, Christophersen, Jc Wolf, 1977) and negotiate with their adolescents (Kifer, Lewis, Green, 8c Phillips, 1974); and (4) train teachers to improve students’ classroom behavior (Jones & Eimers, 1975; Jones, Fremouw, 8c Carples, 1977). Behavior management methods involve the systematic application of consequences (e.g., attention, material goods, desired activities) following behaviors of interest to children, parents, and the broader community. Such methods are intended either to increase the likelihood of behaviors identified as desirable by these persons or to decrease behaviors identified as undesirable. Examples include (1) children receiving teacher attention and approval for paying attention in class (Kazdin, 1977), earning access to play for completing classwork (Hopkins, Schutte, & Garton, 1971), and receiving praise and toys for appropriate behavior during dental treatment (Stokes & Kennedy, 1980); (2) adolescents acquiring token economy points which could be exchanged for privileges and allowance for household maintenance (Wood & Flynn, 1978); (3) parents earning money for learning and implementing behavioral programs with their children (Peine & Munro, 1973) and (4) teachers earning bonus payments for implementing an instructional program with children (Harris, Bushell, Sherman, & Kane, 1975).

322

Fawcett, Seekins, and Braukmann

EnvironmentuE design, a third type of intervention, is intended to affect the type and amount of relevant youth and caregiver behavior by the arrangement of the physical and social structure of the environment. For example, Twardosz, Cataldo, and Risley (1974) rearranged the physical structure of a day-care facility to permit more effective supervision of children. Each type of behavioral method has been shown to be effective for a variety of children and youths in natural homes, day-care centers, and other child-care settings (Leitenberg, 1976). Often such technologies involve combinations of instruction, behavior management, and environmental design, and some research findings suggest that combinations of methods are more effective than individual methods (e.g., Ford, Christophersen, Fixsen, Phillips, & Wolf, Note 1). Occasionally, although more rarely, many individual technologies are integrated into a comprehensive behavioral treatment program. For example, an extraordinarily comprehensive program is the Teaching-Family model of group home treatment which has been applied with delinquent, disturbed, autistic, and retarded children and youth. This program involves instructional and behavior management procedures, self-government procedures, relationship enhancement procedures, as well as a method for transferring the system and maintaining its quality when in use (Phillips, Phillips, Fixsen, & Wolf, 1974). Promising criteria for behavioral technologies-whether individual methods or comprehensive programs-are discussed in the following section. Characteristics

of Appropriate

Behavioral

Technologies

As discussed elsewhere (Fawcett, Mathews, & Fletcher, 1980), the characteristics of a behavioral technology may affect its adoption, adaptation, and continued use by parents, caregivers, or other potential adopters. Methods for parent training and operation of childcare facilities may be particularly useful if they are appropriate to the contexts in which they will be used. For example, although university consultants may be effective in providing parent training, they are often beyond the means of parents or unavailable in many communities. Similarly, although effective and adequately detailed parent training manuals may be available, they may be too complicated for easy implementation or too rigid for adaptation to specific family circumstances. More appropriate technologies might result in broader adoption and easier implementation. Appropriate behavioral technologies for children and youth might be characterized as: (1) effective, (2) inexpensive, (3) flexible, (4) simple, (5) sustainable, (6) preferred, and (7) compatible.

Developing and Transferring Technologies

323

Presumably, more effective methods of childcare Effective. would be welcomed by parents and other caregivers, an assumption that contributes to the prominence given this dimension in the field of behavior analysis (Baer et al., 1968). Similarly, Rogers and Shoemaker (197 1) note the importance of “relative advantage,” or “the degree to which an innovation is perceived to be better than the idea that it supercedes” (p.138). Thus, we would expect that those behavioral technologies that result in more effective childcare would be more likely to be adopted and used. Questions about how the goals of caregivers (and hopefully, the children) can be attained most effectively are in the province of social scientists. Thus, psychologists, social workers, and other program developers bring the knowledge of their scientific disciplines to bear on improving the effectiveness of available methods. However, issues involving what standards should be sought (i.e., what is “good” childcare?) and how society should respond to deviations from these standards (i.e., what sanctions such as fines or incarceration should be imposed for “bad” childcare) are not technical problems. Rather, such issues draw on philosophical knowledge and legal precedent and are contested in the domains of politics and law. The developed methods and materials should be Inexpensive. affordable by the greatest number of potential users (Schumacher, 1973). As a rule of thumb, perhaps the cost of individual behavioral technologies, such as a training program for parents, should not exceed the monthly discretionary income for an adopting family. Presumably, more comprehensive treatment programs would be priced within the budgets of existing organizations. Rogers and Shoemaker (197 1) described similar attributes of innovations that affect their rate of adoption including low initial cost relative to alternatives, low perceived risk, and an eventual savings in time and effort. Thus, cost-effectiveness is frequently cited as a relevant dimension for judging the social significance of behavioral technologies (e.g., Bunck & Iwata, 1978; Reiss, Piotrowski, & Bailey, 1976; Jones, Note 2). Flexible. Behavioral technologies that are specified in such detail as to limit arbitrarily the ways in which the method can be used or which restrict the acceptable childcare responses may be regarded as inflexible (Reppucci & Saunders, 1974). For example, a parent training program that describes one unalterable method of increasing desirable child behaviors (perhaps a single form of contingency contracting) limits unnecessarily the parents’ opportu-

324

Fawcett, Seekins, and Braukmann

nities to fit this procedure to their needs and resources. By contrast, the designer might provide a variety of approaches for increasing child behavior (perhaps including differential social attention, hugs, etc.). Also, descriptions of why, when, and when not to use a procedure can assist the parent in selecting among alternative procedures or in adjusting the method to fit his or her child (Azrin, 1977). Similarly, descriptions of behavioral principles underlying the method-not simply descriptions of proceduresmay contribute to the caregiver’s ability to make adjustments in technologies (Copeland & Hall, 1976). Simpk. Perceived complexity appears to reduce the likelihood of adopting and using an innovation such as a behavioral management program for families (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). Thus, the technology should be as simple as possible while being appropriately comprehensive. Accordingly, attempts should be made to prepare training materials for parents and childcare workers at various reading levels and to reduce the complexity of instructions accompanying training. Insofar as simplicity is achieved by providing considerable procedural detail (Baer et al., 1968; Mathews & Fawcett, 1979), the resulting detailed instructions may reduce the ease with which the procedures may be adapted to local conditions. Simultaneously maximizing procedural detail to permit replication by anyone, on the one hand, and flexibility to permit necessary adaptations, on the other, may require considerable artistry on the part of the designer.

The relationship between technology and its conSustainable. text must be such that the technology can be sustained. This requires sufficient means to insure that the technology is continued (perhaps including motivational and instructional systems if the technology is large-scale and complex). Of course, the simpler and less expensive the technology, the more likely it is that the technology will be durable. For example, if use of a parent advice package requires the continuous supervision of a professional psychologist or social worker, its use by the family will probably be discontinued. By contrast, if the time, skill, and budget requirements of the behavioral technology reflect the actual resources for the family or community agency, the use of the behavioral technology will more likely continue. Prejerred. To the extent possible, a behavioral technology should be liked by the children who are the targets of the technol-

Developing and Transferring Technologies

325

ogy and the caregivers who are asked to implement it. Ideally, the technology should be such that it would be most often preferred by them among comparably effective and reasonable options. Optimizing the satisfaction of the child or youth, as well as of the person implementirrg the technology, is likely to facilitate the initial and ongoing success of the technology. For example, the satisfaction of youths and other consumers appears to predict program survival (Braukmann, Fixsen, Kirigin, Phillips, Phillips, & Wolf, 1975) and youth improvement (Braukmann, Kirigin, & Wolf, Note 3) in behavioral, group-home programs for delinquents. One means of enhancing children’s and youth’s satisfaction with and preference for a technology is to involve them directly and significantly in the implementation of the technology (Phillips, Phillips, Wolf, & Fixsen, 1973). Compatible. An innovation such as a behavioral technology is “compatible” insofar as it is consistent with existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters (Rogers & Shoemaker, 197 1). If the prevailing values in an alternative daycare center are for freedom, a behavior management procedure that requires frequent observation and a structured schedule of reinforcements is likely to be incompatible with local customs and practices. We would expect that such practices would not be adopted, or if adopted, that their use would not be sustained. Attempts to promote adoption of behavioral technologies might introduce innovations that are similar to current practices and might attempt to modify behavioral technologies to fit the customs and practices of parents and other caregivers. In summary, characteristics for appropriate behavioral technology are the following: (1) effective, (2) inexpensive, (3) flexible, (4) simple, (5) sustainable, (6) preferred, and (7) compatible. Adherence to these criteria in designing behavioral technologies for children and youth may affect their rate of adoption, adaptation, and continued use by parents and other caregivers. The next section provides a discussion of the research and development stage of such technologies. Research and Development of Behavioral Technologies The development of appropriate behavioral technologies for children and youth, like other scientific efforts to create and diffuse knowledge, involves efforts to research and to develop as well as to

326

Fawcett, Seekins, and Braukmann

transfer the technology to the appropriate settings for implementation (Havelock, 1973; Liberman, 1980; Thomas, 1978). There is often a dynamic interplay between research efforts to understand problems and discover tentative solutions and developmental efforts to refine the solutions and prepare them for transfer to other settings. Initial research might suggest tentative solutions or components of a solution that can then be tested against the criteria for appropriate technology discussed above. This preliminary testing often suggests aspects of the method in need of modification or new development. A correspondingly revised solution can then be tested again, and, if necessary, revised again, tested again, and so forth. In this trial-and-error strategy, problems can be as instructive as successes in the refinement of behavioral technologies. Research and development often begins with discussions with youth, parents, and caregivers regarding problems that they are experiencing or skills that they find helpful in coping with common situations in the home, at school, or in other relevant settings (cf. Clark, Greene, Macrae, McNees, Davis, & Risley, 1977; Willner et al., 1977). Based on these discussions with potential users of a behavioral technology, the need for specific methods and some of the requirements of them are identified. Further research often involves reviews of relevant literatures, analyses of successful and unsuccessful attempts to address a particular concern, and discussions with available experts. For example, in preparing a method for teaching counseling skills to youth caregivers, an investigator might discuss with children and those who counsel them the problems experienced by both, review the literatures of counseling and problem-solving, observe and contrast successful and unsuccessful counseling efforts, and interview persons known to be effective counselors. Such preliminary research can often result in information about the problem and critical elements in approaches to its remediation that are likely to be effective and appropriate. Once the problem has been defined and a tentative framework for the method has been identified, the next step involves selecting and preparing a behavior management, instructional, or environmental design intervention (or combined intervention). This intervention should be suited to the demands of the problem, the resources available to parents and caregivers, and the unique requirements of each child or youth. For example, a method for teaching counseling skills might involve the use of such welldocumented educational procedures as clear descriptions of the behavior, examples, rationales, study guides, practice, and feedback on the performance of the skills (e.g., Dancer, Braukmann,

Developing and Transferring Technologies

327

Schumaker, Kirigin, Willner, & Wolf, 1978; Fawcett & Fletcher, 1977; Kirigin et al., 1975, Mathews 8c Fawcett, 1977). Once developed, an embryonic technology is usually implemented by the designers on a small scale. This is important since an optimal solution is not likely to result from a priori considerations. Rather, learning from and designing around errors is usually necessary to improve the fit between a technology and its likely contexts. The more complex the technology, the longer the research and development efforts are likely to be. Information about the effectiveness of specific parts of the technology and the effects of the technology on consumers is critical to research and development and dissemination (Havelock, 1973). The effects of the developing technology are sometimes evaluated using single subject or group time series designs or group comparison designs as appropriate (Campbell & Stanley, 1966; Cook & Campbell, 1979). The measures used with evaluation should relate to as many of the criteria for appropriate technology as feasible, and thus might include consumer satisfaction, effectiveness, durability, and cost. Where there is more than one effective and durable procedure, selection should be made on consumer satisfaction dimensions (Willner, Braukmann, Kirigin, 8c Wolf, 1978). Following this, required revisions and subsequent evaluations need to be performed. It is important that the developing technology is tested in the environment in which it will be used and with the participants with whom it will be used. Finally, a means of transferring the behavioral technologies needs to be developed. This may mean “packaging” a technology with a written manual, audiotape or other forms designed to permit a parent or other caregiver to replicate the procedures without direct contact with the program developers (e.g., Fawcett & Fletcher, 1977; Mathews & Fawcett, 1979). This replicability should then be assessed directly to assure that the strategy results in appropriate use of the technology by its intended target population (cf. Braukmann et al., 1974; Clark et al., 1977). Replicating more complex technologies may require workshop training in addition to manuals and audio/video tapes (Braukmann 8c Maloney, 1979), and/or may require direct in uivo teaching and supervision of the adopters, consultation with adopters (Stein, 1975)) and/or ongoing quality-control evaluation procedures (Phillips et al., 1974). The dissemination of empirically-validated interventions likely will require a substantial and sustained effort beyond the initial research and development (Liberman, 1980). It is to this aspect of technology development and transfer that we now turn our attention.

328

Fawcett, Seekins, and Braukmann Transfer

of Behavioral

Technology

Once an appropriate and demonstrably effective behavioral technology has been developed, the efforts of the researcher may shift to the widespread diffusion of the technology to those who are in a position to implement it. From the perspective of the disseminator, there is a message to be communicated through various channels or media to some set of potential adopters in order to influence the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the technology (Berlo, 1960; Rogers & Shoemaker, 197 1). From the perspective of the receiver of the message, there may be several obstacles to adoption (Mager 8c Pipe, 1970). First, a potential adopter may lack information about the condition and technologies designed to address it. For example, parents may be unaware of behavioral methods for improving child management. Second, potential adopters may lack the skills required to develop or implement programs. Finally, potential adopters may lack incentives to innovate or may face potentially punishing consequences for change. For example, attending a parent training workshop may involve some risk as well as time and monetary costs. Researchers (Havelock, 1973; Rogers & Shoemaker, 197 1) have identified several stages in the process of adoption of innovations, including: awareness of the new technology, interest in it, assessment of its utility, trial, implementation, and maintenance of the technology. Obstacles to the adoption of an innovation may arise in any of these stages. This suggests that the efforts of a disseminator to diffuse a new technology might be orchestrated to remove obstacles and to facilitate each stage of adoption. The remainder of this section describes various procedures and strategies that might be used to accomplish this objective. Awareness. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) identify the first stage in the process of adoption of an innovation as awareness of it. During this stage, a potential adopter becomes aware of the availsuch as a parent training program, ability of an innovation, through some channel such as mass media or personal contact with a parent or other caregiver who knows about the innovation. To promote awareness of a condition and the innovative approach to it, disseminators must describe the problem and its potential solution (the innovation) to as many potential adopters as possible. The greater the number of sources from which a potential adopter hears of a problem and its innovative solution, the higher the perceived validity of the message (Risley, Note 4). A disseminator may use several channels to propagate a message, including: brochures;

Developing and Transferring Technologies films; mass media such as newspapers, radio, and television; presentations at professional associations such as the American Psychological Association; meetings of organizations of those affected by the problem such as Parent/Teacher associations; professional journals such as Social Work; popular magazines such as Redbook; and personal contacts with individuals known to be active in attempting to solve the problem. Awareness seldom results in the adoption of an innovation (Fairweather, Sanders, & Tornatzky, 1974), but it may result in active attempts by potential adopters to seek more information. The implementation of an innovation usually requires further efforts by both the disseminator and potential adopter. In the interest stage, a potential adopter actively Interest. seeks information about the innovation, such as: how does it work, how effective is it, how difficult is it to use, how expensive is it, etc. Disseminators may use several strategies to respond to this stage of adoption. For example, the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) system provides information about an extremely broad range of new educational research and programs. Some disseminators offer visits to potential adopters by consultants. Other dissemination efforts, such as the Follow-Through Project, offer detailed information about their technology through resource centers and field agents. One of the most important sources of information during this stage comes from those who have already adopted a new technology. Most people are reluctant to adopt a new practice until they have observed its successful use by others (Bandura, 1969). Thus, strategies of diffusion have included using demonstration centers for such technologies or media presentations depicting new behavior resulting from use of the technology. Further, Rogers and Shoemaker (197 1) indicate that the early adopters of an innovation (20% of those from the targeted group) play a critical role in diffusion since they will be a primary source of information for later adopters. Since early adopters of a new technology play such an important role in diffusion, prudent selection of early adopters might be a pivotal element of any diffusion strategy. Research suggests that early adopters might be selected for their high social status within the targeted group (Bandura, 1969; Rogers 8c Shoemaker, 1971), their number of linkages with other members of the targeted group, and their proximity to other potential adopters-thus, making their use of the innovation more accessible to observation (Havelock, 1973; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). In addition, organizations selected as early adopters might also be expected to exhibit

330

Fawcett, Seekins, and Braukmann

pressure for top performance, have a growth orientation, provide freedom for employees and staff to set personal goals, have expectations for the use of new knowledge, have nonrestrictive rules and procedures, and encourage risk-taking (Baumgartel, Sullivan, & Dunn, 1978). Selection of potential early adopters according to these individual and organizational characteristics may result in wider interest in the behavioral technology. Assessment. The assessment of an innovative practice by a potential adopter may occur during each stage of the adoption process but it is most prominent after information about it has been gathered and just before a decision about its use is made. During this stage, the potential adopter weighs the information gathered about the innovation against current and future conditions to decide if it is appropriate. Ideally, the characteristics of the innovation (i.e., its effectiveness, cost, complexity, etc.) match the needs and resources of the potential adopter and the process of adoption moves into the next stage. However, in some cases, potential adopters may lack incentives or face potentially punishing consequences for change (Bandura, 1969; Mager & Pipe, 1970; Quilitch, 1975; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). For example, the implementation of a new program may take valuable time away from other activities-as when staff must attend workshops to implement new programs. To overcome these and other motivational obstacles associated with adoption of a new technology, the disseminator may offer technical assistance, feedback, and incentives to the adopters until the benefits of using the new technology are sufficient to maintain its use. For example, a new technology such as childcare management may be offered free or at a reduced cost to parents through adult education centers. Alternatively, disseminators might help local agencies apply for funding through giving them models for service grant applications. Also, associations of adopters such as parent groups may be formed to give recognition and support to help sustain interest in the new practice. Trial. The fourth stage of the adoption process involves trial uses of the innovation. In this stage, the adopter may attempt to further reduce the risks of implementing a new technology by testing components of it or implementing it on a small scale. For example, developers of a new school intervention strategy that incorporates social skills training, a classroom management program, and teacher consultation meetings, might first encourage the testing of the contingency management program by one teacher, i.e.,

Developing

and Transferring

Technologies

331

an early adopter. Next, the developers might encourage more such testing or testing of some other component. (See, for example, Reppucci, 1977). As each component is demonstrated to be successful, new implementation steps might be added in successive approximations of the complete program. In addition, this trial phase may incorporate other elements of a diffusion strategy such as selecting early adopters and providing models of successful use of the program. If the assessment of the innovation is favorImplementation. able and any trials confirm its benefits, the new practice is likely to be implemented. This may be done in several ways; e.g., gradually expanding the number of components used, the number of behaviors targeted, the number of settings in which the practice is used, or immediately implementing the full use of the new technology. At this point, an innovation is said to be adopted but evaluation of it continues in order to measure its success in attaining goals and to assist in making necessary modifications of the new practice to fit local conditions. Implementation of appropriate behavioral technology for children often involves changes in the behavior of individuals in the child’s environment (e.g., parents, teachers, institutional staff). This is most often accomplished by teaching new behaviors to these individuals using self-contained educational materials such as books, manuals, and audiovisual packages (Fawcett, Fletcher, & Mathews, 1980). For example, a number of self-contained, behaviorially-based parent-training manuals are available (although few have been evaluated as to their utility, Bernal & North, 1978). Except for quite circumscribed and simple problems, direct (in person) training in the use of the technology is critical for successful implementation. Such training often combines (e.g., in a workshop format) several or all of the following elements: lectures, group discussions, modeling (videotaped or live), and behavior rehearsal along with performance feedback (Graziano, 1977; Hanf, Note 5). Research suggests that training that incorporates modeling with individual practice of and feedback on techniques is superior to group lectures in imparting the durable and accurate use of the techniques (Eyberg 8c Matarazzo, 1980; Gardner, 1972). Training may also involve consequences for learning the new techniques (e.g., reduced workshop fees; Graziano, 1977). A comprehensive technology may require training mediators of the technology. For example, a training and incentives program might be developed to train consultants how to train and motivate classroom teachers in the implementation of a specific classroom management system

332

Fawcett, Seekins, and Braukmann

with children (Greenwood, Hops, Walker, Guild, Stokes, Young, Keleman, & Willardson, 1979). The implementation of a complex technology (e.g., residential treatment) often involves ongoing in vivo training, periodic consultation, and supervision by experienced and skillful consultant/ trainers. Accordingly, those wishing to implement the technology often recruit already trained and experienced personnel to help implement the program. Such personnel might provide services directly or train others to monitor the quality of care. Of course, the chosen means of implementation should be effective and otherwise appropriate to the social context of the childcare setting. Maintenance. In the final stage of adoption, the adopter must manage the environment and the use of the new technology to maintain the viability of the innovation. The maintenance of a behavioral technology is necessary to insure its continued viability. If a behavioral technology is to retain its appropriate characteristics, there needs to be ongoing monitoring and adjustments. Consultation and technical assistance from the disseminators may be crucial at this point. Monitoring of complex technologies and ongoing training are important, especially when there are overlapping staff responsibilities and turnover of staff is frequent. Although expensive and not widely practiced, periodic formal assessment of a technology can be accomplished through measures of consumer satisfaction and effectiveness (cf. Braukmann et al., 1975). Pay raises for childcare workers, certification renewal, or other incentives can be used to promote effective and enduring implementation of a technology. Such incentives are often essential because the structure and practices of many childcare settings are not oriented to maximize beneficial outcomes for children (Kazdin, 1979).

Rice and Rogers (1980) state that technologies Reinuention. often undergo “reinvention” by adopters seeking to improve local conditions or achieve personal improvements. This process, although compatible with the stages of adoption described earlier, emphasizes the modzjkation of innovations. Reinvention involves the recombination of components of innovations or the combination of different technologies by individual problem-solvers to fit local conditions. Several researchers suggest that the methods used by external change agents to disseminate a new technology should include participatory procedures that promote ownership of the innovation by the adopters as it is implemented (Coward, 1973; Fairweather et al., 1974; Havelock, 1973; Likert, 1961; Lippit, Watson, & Wesley, 1958; Mann & Baumgartel, 1952; Rice & Rogers, 1980; Schu-

Developing and Transferring Technologies

333

macher, 1973). The explicit effort to consider local characteristics that influence the use of a new technology combined with the division of the technology into testable units may result in unique and ecologically sound applications of the technology. Such efforts may then serve as examples to future adopters in similar circumstances. Recent work in achieving widespread consensus on social policy (Nelkin, 1977) suggests a framework for implementing the reinvention process. This framework relies on a working group composed of the disseminator and potential local adopters of a new technology such as the teachers and aides of an after school program or the staff of a childcare agency. The members of the group, sometimes called a “study circle,” define the local problem, set local goals, consider alternative solutions to the problem (including the innovation), identify local characteristics that should be considered in any attempted change, establish a plan for change, and detail a method to evaluate their efforts. This study circle process might be used to facilitate reinvention of the technology to better fit local needs and resources. In summary, the process of transferring behavioral technologies includes the phases of awareness, interest, assessment, trial, implementation, and maintenance. The likelihood and rate of adoption of new technologies is affected not only by the characteristics of the innovation itself and the number of available channels to reach potential adopters, but also by the ability of the disseminator to remove obstacles confronting potential adopters moving through the adoption process. The active participation of potential adopters in all stages of the adoption process and the opportunity to reinvent the innovation may also be positively related to adoption. Discussion Attempts to transfer behavioral technologies for children and youth raise a number of issues. There are those who say the field is not ready for technology dispensing (Dietz, 1978), or at least that much of the field is not (Graziano, 1977). Others consider available technology, however modest, of considerable potential use. Nevertheless, barriers to dissemination are noted such as the fact that researchers are seldom active in disseminating the interventions that they have developed (Kazdin, 1979). This may be explained, in part, by the fact that University resources are more appropriate for research and development-and not dissemination-and that the rewards for researchers are for creating new knowledge, not for its careful transfer to the public. The value of consumer involvement in the research and devel-

334

Fawcett, Seekins, and Braukmann

opment, transfer, and reinvention of behavioral technology should be apparent. To the extent that consumers can be involved in the research and development phase, the choice of goals and means should be more compatible with the needs and im lementation B skills of the consumers. For example, consumer satisfaction and preference data regarding the goals, procedures, and effects of a parent training program should help yield more relevant and responsive youth-related treatment methods. Similarly, the reinvention process provides an opportunity for consumers to modify the technology in response to local needs. Thus, this discussion reflects the belief that consumer involvement in the development, transfer, and reinvention of behavioral technology might result in more effective and compatible youth-related treatment methods. It may appear that there is a tension between the processes of transferring and reinventing behavioral technologies for children and youth. On the one hand, it appears that the procedures should be followed exactly (i.e., replicated directly) so as to increase the chances of producing effects similar to those obtained in the research and development stages. On the other hand, it appears that, for procedures to be adopted, they may need to be adapted to meet local or personal conditions. In many cases, reinvention will be attempted after a purer replication has been achieved in order to provide a condition against which to compare the effects of any alterations in the childcare technology. In addition, such reinvention efforts may best follow an analysis of the possible consequences (positive and negative) of changes in the technology. Clearly, the goal of the transfer of a technology is the attainment of parent and child goals. The researcher/disseminator must balance carefully requirements for replication and reinvention to achieve this goal. To the extent that consumer desired changes in the elements or procedures of a technology can be accommodated without sacrificing effectiveness (i.e., achieving a goal) or safety (i.e., risk to the parent or child) reinvention may be encouraged. Such appropriate reinvention may contribute to the effectiveness of the technology and the continued use of its procedures. Such appropriate reinvention may contribute to the involvement of consumers and, in doing so, help insure the continued use of the procedures. The long-term survival of implemented behavioral technologies, as well as other technical procedures, has been relatively rare (Liberman, 1980). Effectiveness of procedures rnay not be the most critical factor here. Rather, survival is often affected by other factors including economic, community, administrative, and bureaucratic changes, restraints, and external pressures (Reppucci & Saunders,

Developing and Transferring Technologies

335

1974; Turkat & Forehand, 1980). Thus, “political knowhow” (an understanding of the often complex and subtle contingencies that exist in many social systems) may be necessary to promote the survival of even appropriate larger-scale behavior technology. There are also internal threats to the survival of behavior technologies, especially those technologies involving the actions and discretion of many administrators and staff personnel. Where staff training is limited or ineffective, where monitoring is infrequent, or where staff turnover is high, there can be a rapid and potentially harmful deterioration of technologies (Bassett 8c Blanchard, 1977; Risley, 1975). Similarly, where technologies are implemented by persons (e.g., staff) other than the adopter (e.g., administrator), there may be resistance to use of the procedures and variability in its use by individual staff. Thus, ongoing sensitivity to information on the effectiveness of a behavioral technology as well as on the external and internal threats to its integrity is critical to the technology’s longterm survival. Obtaining such information is facilitated by formally as well as informally requesting and positively reinforcing corrective (often negative) feedback on the technology’s performance from all those who might significantly affect the technology’s performance. It is with such ongoing feedback that necessary, adaptive adjustments to the unique circumstances of the particular setting can be made. Another prominent consideraton for researchers-developers is that of to whom their behavior technologies should be transferred. Among potential consumers of parent training and other youthrelated technologies are individuals (e.g., parents), members of existing professional associations (e.g., American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers), members of an association of certified caregivers (e.g., National Teaching-Family Association), and agency staff. For example, whereas a simple advice package for handling problems with toilet training might be communicated directly to all interested parents, a comprehensive program for reducing delinquent behavior in youths might be disseminated only to certified youth caregivers. Similarly, such a comprehensive program for delinquent youths might be communicated more efficiently by initially contacting the state or regional administrators who control child care resources rather than the individual caregivers in group homes scattered throughout a state or region. The size and complexity of the technology, its cost, opportunities for controlling resources, and possibilities of violation of ethical standards are among the factors that might determine the choice of consumer for the youth-related behavior technology. As with other social interventions (Kelman & Warwick, 1978),

336

Fawcett, Seekins, and Braukmann

there appear to be at least four aspects of disseminating behavioral technologies for children and youth that raise significant ethical issues: (1) the choice of goals to which behavioral technologies are applied; (2) the definition of the targets of change; (3) the choice of means used in the behavioral technology; and (4) the assessment of the consequences of the behavioral technology. First, how the goals for the technology are chosen can have ethical implications. Relevant questions include: What is the “ideal state” of child or youth behavior that is implicit in the goal for the behavior technology! From what cultural perspective and ideological system is this defined! Second, how the proposed targets or “beneficiaries” of the behavioral technology were chosen can have implications. For example, are the targeted behaviors in a parent training program for low-income minority persons behaviors that are perceived as “deviant” by those providing the program or by the dominant culture, but not by other residents of the commmunity? If so, the primary beneficiaries may be those who are paid to work with “deviant” children, rather than the children and parents. Third, the means chosen for the behavioral technology and how these means were chosen can affect a judgement about ethical practice. To what extent were potential participants in behavior change programs involved in defining the problem, choosing the goals for the technology, and selecting the means for behavior change desired by the community? To what extent do the means of behavior change rely on coercion rather than facilitation of participant-selected goals for behavior change? Finally, the consequences of disseminating the behavioral technology can have ethical implications. Are the targets’ alternatives expanded as a result of the technology? Are there harmful side effects of the behavioral technology as it is used after dissemination? To what extent is the program disseminator, rather than the child or caregiver, the primary beneficiary of the behavioral technology? How does the diffusion of the behavioral technology affect the distribution of power and resources in society? Further consideration and informed discussion may help to clarify these and other ethical issues involved in developing and disseminating behavioral technologies for children and youth. In this paper we have examined issues in the development and transfer of behavioral technologies for children and youth. Characteristics for appropriate technologies were suggested, and strategies for research and development of these methods were described. In addition, the process of transferring behavioral technologies was outlined and issues relevant to its application with children and youth were discussed. It is our hope that further

Developing and Transferring Technologies inquiry into the development and transfer of behavioral technologies will contribute to their utility for children and their caregivers. Acknowledgement; This was a collaborative effort in which authorship should be considered equal. Preparation of this manuscript was supported, in part, by the University of Kansas research units-the Center for Public Affairs and the Achievement Place Research Projectof which we are a part. (The support of the Achievement Place Project is provided in large part by grant MH20030 from the National Institute of Mental Health.) We gratefully acknowledge the influence of our colleagues, especially Kay Fletcher, Mark Mathews, and Montrose Wolf on some of the ideas in this manuscript. We thank Montrose

Wolf and Paula Whang for their feedback on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Reference Notes 1. Ford, D., Christophersen, E. R., Fixsen, D. L., Phillips, E.L., 8c Wolf, M.M. Parent-child znteraction in a token eanomy. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas, 1973. 2. Jones, R. R. Helping youths zn trouble: An ezlaluation of the teaching7family model. Invited address presented at the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, 1978. 3. Braukmann, C.J., Kirigin, K.A.. & Wolf, M.M. The researchers’ perspective. In J. Breiling (Chair), Behaxlioral programs jar treating deviant youths: Resn1t.c and utilization. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 1976. 4. Risley, T.R. Personal communication, 1980. 5. Hanf, C. Facilitating parent-child interactzon: A two-stage procedure. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon Medical School, 1972.

References Allison, M.G., & Ayllon, T. Behavioral coaching in the development of skills in football, gymnastics, and tennis. Journal of Applied Behazaior Analysis, 1980, 13, 297-314. Azrin, N.H. Foreward. In B. Sulzer-Azaroff & G.R. Mayer (Eds.), Applying behailior-analysis procedures wzth chddren and youth. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1977. Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T.R. Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 91-97. Bandura, A. Principles of behailior modijication. New York: Holt, 1969. Barnard, J.D., Christophersen, E.R., & Wolf, M.M. Teaching children appropriate shopping behavior through parent training in the supermarket setting. Journal oj Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 49-59. Barton, E.J., & Ascione, F.R. Sharing in pre-school children: Facilitation, stimulus generalization, response generalization, and maintenance. Journal oj Applied Behavior Analysis, 1979, 12, 417-430. Bassett, J.E., & Blanchard, E.B. The effect of absence of close supervision on the use of response cost in a prison token economy. Journal of Applied Behazlior Analpis, 1977, IO, 375-379.

338

Fawcett, Seekins, and Braukmann

Baumgartel,

H.,

personality

Sullivan,

affect

G.J.,

the

8c Dunn,

pay-off

from

L.E.

How

advanced

organizational

management

Kansas Bw~rness RPI~iew, 1978, 2, l- 10. D.K. The pocess oj communication. New York:

Berlo,

Holt.

climate

training

Rinehart,

and

sessions.

and Winston,

1960. Bernal,

M.E.,

A#ied

& North,

J.A.

BehazGor Analps,

Birnbrauer,

J.S.

Mental

A survey

C.J.,

Hersen,

& Fixsen,

R.M.

Eisler,

1). New York: Braukmann,

Englewood

ents.

Research

Braukmann, 8c II).

Wood

(Ed.),

Press,

1975.

C.J.,

Braukmann, Place.

J.D.,

N.J.:

& Iwata,

nutritious

of

K.A.,

P.T.

1976.

with delinquents.

Phillips,

training

(Eds.).

D.M.,

Handbook of bulra-clror

Prentice-Hall,

PTO~~~JS in beh~ior

In M.

modificatwn

E.A.,

Phillips,

and certification

Touching-f)arPnt

of Kansas

Fixsen,

(L’ol.

E.L..

&

of teaching-par-

Behavior

training manvrals (Vols.

Printing

D.L.,

package

Service,

Phillips,

for

Jzrsttcr and Behazlior, 1974,

Cliffs,

Jocrmal

e?~alztating beha7~ior modv$catron. Champaign,

I.\-s77~.5 1v7

interview

8c Harig,

glewood based

The

K.B.

(Ed.),

T.J.,

Kirigin,

Place:

University

H. Leitenberg Bunck,

D.L.,

Maloney,

Criminul

manuals.

(Ed.), N.J:

modification

(Eds.),

1975.

Kansas:

of a selection

Burchard,

Miller

8~ Maloney,

C.J..

training

Cliffs,

Behavior

Press,

Fixsen,

Lawrence,

analysis

& P.M.

Achievement

In M’.S.

Ill.:

D.L.

Academic

C. J.,

Wolf’, M.M.

parent

In H. Leitenberg

retardation.

modification and brhazlior thrra/q. Braukmann,

of

1978, 11, 533-544.

E.L.,

I

1979.

& Wolf,

pre-delinquents

M.M.

An

at Achievement

1, 30-42.

modification

and juvenile

delinquency.

In

of behaz~wr modification and behazliov- thera~~y. EnPrentice-H&, 1976. Handbook

B.A.

Increasing

meals

program.

senior

citizen

participation

in a community-

Jovrrnal (4 Applied Behu~wr Analps,

1978, 11,

75-86. Campbell,

D.T.,

research. Clark,

H.B.,

A parent T.D.,

R.M.

B.F.,

Macrae,

package

for

of Af$ied

Coward,

D.D.,

M’olf,

M.M.

R.V.

8s P.M.

Academic E.W.,

Dancer,

Westminster,

R., 8c Hall,

Sociologrral

S.M.

Amtwcan Doleys, M.

D.M. Hersen,

1973,

and

and

Davis, J.L.,

8c Risley,

Development

and

analysis

House,

modification Progrp,v

T.R.

evalua-

of quasi-experiments

for

1979.

in the classroom.

In M. Hersen,

in behax?or modificatvon (Vol. and developmental

Schumaker,

J.B..

validation 1978,

Modification, status

(Vol. 6). New York:

M.P., trips:

1977, 10, 605-623.

design

innovations

C.J.,

training

R.M.

for

3). New

change.

Phvllvp/ne

21, 239-243.

Braukmann,

Assessment

designs

1976.

Sociocultural

Psyfvologist,

McNees, shopping

Random

(Eds.).

Jr.

Current

The

Behavior

Rrrk~!,

The

J.W.,

family

MD:

Miller

Press,

tion skills. Belxwior Dietr,

D.T.

and quasi-experimental

1966.

Beha7lror Analyis,

8r Campbell,

Eisler,

York:

Experimental

McNally,

advice

field settings. Copeland,

J.C.

Rand

Greene,

tion. Jownal Cook,

& Stanley,

Chicago:

of applied

Kirigin,

of behavior

K.A.,

Willner,

observation

and

A.G.,

8c

descrip-

2, 113- 134.

behavior

analysis:

Science

versus

technology.

1978, 33, 805-814. and treatment

Eisler,

8c P.M.

Academic

of enuresis

Miller

Press,

(Eds.),

1978.

and encopresis

in children.

In

Progrer., in beha?lvor mod$catvovL

Developing and Transferring Technologies

339

Eyberg, SM., & Matarazzo, R.G. Training parents as therapists: A comparison between parent-child interaction training and parent group didactic training. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1980,36, 492-499. Fairweather, G.W., Sanders, D.H., & Tornatzky, L.C. Creating change in mental health organizations. New York: Pergamon Press, 1974. Fawcett, S.B., & Fletcher, R.K. Community applications of instructional technology: Trammg writers of instructional packages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, IO, 739-746. Fawcett, S.B., Fletcher, R.K., & Mathews, R.M. Applications of behavior analysis in community education. In D.S. Glenwick & L.A. Jason (Eds.), Behavioral community psychology: Progress and prospects. New York: Praeger, 1980. Fawcett, S.B., Mathews, R.M., & Fletcher, R.K. Some promising dimensions for behavioral community technology. Journal of Applied BehazGor Analysis, 1980, Ijr, 505-5 18. Forehand, R. Child noncompliance to parental requests: Behavioral analysis and treatment. In M. Hersen, R.M. Eisler, & P.M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modtpcation (Vol. 5). New York: Academic Press, 1977. Gardner, J.M. Teaching behavior modification to nonprofessionals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 5, 5 17-52 1. Graziano, A.M. Parents as behavior therapists. In M. Hersen, R.M. Eisler, & P.M. Miller (Eds.), Progress rn behavior modificatzon (Vol. 4). New York: Academic Press, 1977. Greenwood, CR., Hops, H., Walker, H.M., Guild, J.J., Stokes, J., Young, K.R., Keleman, K.S., & Willardson, M. Standardized classroom management program: Social validation and replication studies in Utah and Oregon. Journal of Applied Behazjior Analysis, 1979, 12, 235-253. Harris, V.W., Bushell, D., Sherman, J.A., & Kane, J.F. Instructions, feedback, praise, bonus payments, and teacher behavior. Journal of Applied Behazlior Analysis, 1975, 8, 462. Havaelock, R.G. Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, 1973. Hopkins, B.L., Schutte, R.C., & Garton, K.L. The effects of access to a playroom on the rate and quality of printing and writing of first and second-grade students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1971, 4, 77-87. Johnson, S.B., & Melamed, B.G. The assessment and treatment of children’s fears. In B.B. Lahey & A.E. Kazdin (Eds.), Adzlances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Plenum, 1979. Joint Commission on the Mental Health of Children. Crisis in child mental health. Challenge for the 70s. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Jones, F.H., & Eimers, R.C. Role playing to train elementary teachers to use a classroom management “skill package.” Journal of Applied Behazlior Analysis, 1975,8, 421-433. Jones, F.H., Fremouw, W., & Carples, S. Pyramid training of elementary school teachers to use a classroom management “skill package.” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, IO, 239-253. Kazdin, A.E. The influence of behavior preceding a reinforced response on be-

Fawcett, Seekins, and Braukmann

havior change in the classroom. Journal oj A,t$ied Behazlior Analysts, 1977, 10, 299-310. Kazdin, A.E. Advances in child behavior therapy: Applications and implications. American Psychologist, 1979, 34, 981-987. Kazdin, A.E., & Moyer, W. Training teachers to use behavior modification. In S. Yen & R. McIntire (Eds.), Teaching behavior mod{hcatton. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Behaviordelia, 1976. Kelly, J.A., Wildman, B.G., & Berler, ES. Small group behavioral training to improve the job interview skills repertoire of mildly retarded adolescents. Journal oj Applied Behauior Analysts, 1980, 13, 46 l-47 1. Kelman, H.C., & Warwick, D.P. The ethics of social intervention: Goals, means, and consequences. In G. Bermant, H.C. Kelman, & D.P. Warwick (Eds.), The ethics oj social interuention. New York: Halsted Press, 1978. Kifer, R.E., Lewis, M.A., Green, D.R., & Phillips, E.L. Training pre-delinquent youths and their parents to negotiate conflict situations. Journal of Applzrd Brhmtar Analyszs, 1974, 7, 357-364. Kirigin, K.A., Ayala, H.E., Braukmann, C.J., Brown, W.G., Minkin, IV., Fixsen, D.L., Phillips, E.L., & Wolf, M.M. Training teaching-parents: An evaluation and analysis of workshop training procedures. In E. Ramp & G. Semb (Eds.), Behauior analysts: Areas of research and aj@ltcation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975. Leitenberg, H. Handbook uj behazltor modijtcation and brhazlior therapy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1976. Liberman, R.P. Review of Psychosocial treatmentjor chronic mental patients by Gordon L. Paul and Robert J. Lentz. Journal of Applied Behazvor Analysis, 1980,13, 367371. Likert, R. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Lippit, R., Watson, J., & Wesley, B. The dynamics oj’planned change. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., 1958. Lovaas, O.I., & Newsom, C.D. Behavior modification with psychotic children. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook oj behazlior modijication and behavior therapy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976. Lutzker, J.R., & Sherman, J.A. Producing generative sentence usage by imitation and reinforcement procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysrs, 1974, ?, 447-460.

Mager, R.F., & Pipe, P. Analyztngperjormance problems. Belmont, California: Fearon Publishers, Inc., 1970. Mann, F.C., & Baumgartel, H. Absences and employee attitudes zn an rlectru company. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, 1952. Mathews, R.M., & Fawcett, S.B. Community applications of instructional technology: Training low-income proctors. Journal oj Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 747-754.

Mathews, R.M., & Fawcett, S.B. Assessing dissemination capability: Evaluating an exportable training package, Behavior Modt$cation, 1979, 3, 49-62. Michelson, L., & Wood, R. Behavioral assessment and training of children’s social skills. In M. Hersen, R.M. Eisler, & P.M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behazlior modification (Vol. 9). New York: Academic Press, 1980.

Developing

and Transferring

Technologies

341

Minkin, N., Braukmann, C.J., Minkin, B.L., Timbers, G.D., Timbers, B.J., Fixsen, D.L., Phillips, E.L., & Wolf, M.M. The social validation and training of conversational skills.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 127-139. Nelkin, D. Technological decisions and democracy: European experiments in public partictpation. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1977. O’Leary, S.G., & O’Leary, K.D. Behavior modification in the school. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of behavior modzfication and behavior therapy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976. Ollendick, T.H. Fear reduction techniques with children. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P.M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press, 1979. Peine, H.A., & Munro, P.C. Behavior management of parent training programs. The Psychologtcal Record, 1973,23, 459-466. Phillips, E.L., Phillips, E.A., Fixsen, D.L., & Wolf, M.M. The teaching-family handbook. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Printing Service, 1974. Phillips, E.L., Phillips, E.A., Wolf, M.M., & Fixsen, D.L. Achievement Place: Development of the elected manager system. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973,6, 541-561. Quilitch, H.R. A comparison of three staff management procedures. Journal of Applied Behavzor Analysis, 1975, 8, 59-66. Reiss, M.L., Piotrowski, W.D., & Bailey, J.S. Behavioral community psychology: Encouraging low-income parents to seek dental care for their children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 387-397. Reppucci, N.D. Implementation issues for the behavior modifier as institutional change agent. Behavior Therapy, 1977, 8, 594-605. Reppucci, N.D., & Saunders, J.T. Social psychology of behavior modification: Problems of implementation in natural settings. American Psychologist, 1974,29, 649-660. Rice, R.E., & Rogers, E.M. Reinvention in the innovation process. Knowledge: Creation, diffusion, utilization, 1980, 1, 499-5 14. Risley, T.R. Certify procedures not people. In W.S. Wood (Ed.), Issues in evaluating behavior modification. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 1975. Rogers, E.M., & Shoemaker, F.F. Communzcation of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. London: Free Press, 1971. Rogers-Warren, A., & Baer, D.M. Correspondence between saying and doing: Teaching children to share and praise. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 335-354. Schaefer, C.E., & Millman, H.L. Therapies for children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977. Schumacher, E.F. Small is beautiful: Economics as zf people mattered. New York: Harper and Row, 1973. Shore, M.F. Legislation, advocacy, and the rights of children and youth. American Psychologist, 1979, 34, 1017-1019. Stein, T.J. Some ethical considerations of short-term workshops in the principles and methods of behavior modification. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1975,8, 113-I 15. Stokes, T.F., & Kennedy, S.H. Reducing child uncooperative behavior during

Fawcett, Seekins, and Braukmann

treatment through modeling and reinforcement.Journa1 of Applied Beha?)1980, 13, 41-49. Thomas, E.J. Mousetraps, developmental research, and social work education. Social Service Rerliew, 1978, 52, 468-483. Turkat, I.D., & Forehand, R. The future of behavior therapy. In M. Hersen, R.M. Eisler, & P.M. Miller (Eds.), Progress /n beha?Jior modification (Vol. 9). New York: Academic Press, 1980. Twardosz, S., Cataldo, M.F., & Risley, T.R. Open environment design for infant and toddler day care. Journal of Applied Beha?Jior Analyxis, 1974, 7, 529-546. Yeaton, W.H., & Bailey, J. S. Teaching pedestrian safety skills to young children: An analysis and one-year follow-up. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1978, dental

IW Analysis,

11, 315-329.

Wahler,

R.G. Deviant

Handbook

child

behavior

of behaxjior modzfication

within

the family.

and behavior

therapy.

In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall, 1976. Willner, A.G., Braukmann, C.J., Kirigin, K.A., Fixsen, D.L., Phillips, E.L., & Wolf, M.M. The training and validation of youth-preferred social behaviors of childcare personnel. Journal of Applied Beharjzor Analy.tis, 1977, 10, 219-230. Willner, A.G., Braukmann, C.J., Kirigin, K.A., & Wolf, M.M. Achievement Place: A community treatment model for youths in trouble. In D. Marholin (Ed.), Child brharlior therapy. New York: Gardner Press, 1978. Wolf, M.M. Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behazjior Analysis, 1978, 11, 203-214.

Wood, R., & Flynn, J.M. A self-evaluation token system xjersus an external tion token system alone in a residential setting with pre-delinquent Journal of Applied Behavior Analyszs, 1978, 11, 503-5 12.

evaluayouths.