Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:38:40.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behaviour Modification with Children: The Generalisation Trap

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Ronald S. Drabman ,
J. Scott Allen Jr. ,
Kenneth J. Tarnowski ,
Susan J. Simonian  and
Debra Elliott
Ronald S. Drabman*
Affiliation:
University of Mississippi Medical Center
J. Scott Allen Jr.
Affiliation:
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Kenneth J. Tarnowski
Affiliation:
Case Western Reserve Universityand MetroHealth Medical Center
Susan J. Simonian
Affiliation:
Case Western Reserve Universityand MetroHealth Medical Center
Debra Elliott
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
*
Division of Psychology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 2500 North State Street, Jackson MS 39216–4505, USA
Get access

Abstract

In order to encourage research in generalisation, Drabman, Hammer, and Rosenbaum (1979) introduced a framework to categorise the various generalised effects of child behaviour therapy. Sixteen different potential classes of generalisation were identified. To ascertain the current status of generalisation in the child behaviour therapy literature and further encourage generalisation research, we reviewed articles that appeared in 28 journals over the past 12 years. Of 15,141 studies, only 424 involved children and presented data on generalisation. Results indicated that: (a) a small percentage of studies both involved children and presented data on generalisation (2.77%), (b) of these studies, most failed to meet our methodological criteria for demonstrating generalisation, (c) the generalisation map categories of time, maintenance, setting, and setting-time were the most frequently encountered, (d) there was a significant increase in reported instances of maintenance generalisation effects over the past 10 years when compared with data from our earlier paper, and (e) generalisation data were found concerning 15 of the 16 map classes. Implications of these data, methods of conceptualising generalisation, the generalisation trap, and antecedent strategies for promoting generalisation are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 163 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baer, D.M. (1982). The role of current pragmatics in the future analysis of generalisation technology. In Stuart, R. B. (Ed.), Adherence, compliance, and generalisation in behavioral medicine (pp. 192–212). NY: Bruner/Mazel.Google Scholar
Drabman, R.S., Hammer, D., & Rosenbaum, M.S. (1979). Assessing the generalisation in behavior modification with children: The generalisation map. Behavioral Assessment, 1, 203–219.Google Scholar
Dumas, J. (1989). Treating antisocial behavior in children: Child and family approaches. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 197–222.Google Scholar
Edelstein, B.A. (1989). Generalisation: Terminological, methodological, and conceptual issues. Behavior Therapy, 20, 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horner, R.H., Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R.L. (1988). Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Jacobson, N.S. (1989). The maintenance of treatment gains following social learning-based marital therapy. Behavior Therapy, 20, 325–336.Google Scholar
Karoly, P., & Steffen, J. J. (1980). Improving the long-term effects of psychotherapy: Models of durable outcome. NY: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A.E. (1987). Treatment of antisocial behavior in children: Current status and future direction. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 187–203.Google Scholar
Kendall, P.C. (1989). The generalisation and maintenance of behavior change: Comments, considerations, and the ‘no-cure’ criticism. Behavior Therapy, 20, 357–364.Google Scholar
Lyon, G.R., & Moats, L.C. (1988). Critical issues in the instruction of the learning disabled. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 830–835.Google Scholar
Mann, V.A., & Brady, S. (1988). Reading disability: The role of language deficiencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 811–816.Google Scholar
Marholin, D., Siegel, L.J., & Philips, D. (1976). Treatment and transfer: A search for empirical procedures. In Hersen, M., Eisler, R.M., and Miller, P.M. (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification, Vol. III. NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marlatt, G.A., & Gordon, J.R. (1985). Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in addictive behavior change. NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Stokes, T.F., & Baer, D.M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalisation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.Google Scholar
Stokes, T.F., & Osnes, P.G. (1989). An operant pursuit of generalisation. Behavior Therapy, 20, 337–355.Google Scholar
Ullmann, L.P., & Krasner, L. (1965). Case studies in behavior modification. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Weisz, J.R., Weiss, B., Alicke, M.D., & Klotz, M.L. (1987). Effectiveness of psychotherapy with children and adolescents: A meta-analysis for clinicians. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 542–549.Google Scholar
Wolpe, J. (1986). Misconceptions about behavior therapy: Their sources and consequences. Behavior Change, 3, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar