LEAVE THE RUNNING SHOES AT HOME

Leave the Running Shoes at Home: Addressing Elopement in the Classroom

ROBERT PENNINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE AUTISM CENTER

CONNIE STRANGE, JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

D O N STENHOFF, BISTA CENTER

MONICA DELANO, UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE

LAURA FERGUSON, UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE AUTISM CENTER

Students' leaving a designatedarea without permission orsupervision is referred to as

elopement (Bodfish, 1992), and suchbehavior clearly presents a unique setof challenges for educationalprofessionals. Elopement is seen inchildren and youth with a variety ofdevelopmental disabilities, includingthose with intellectual disabilities orautism, as well as those identifiedwith or at risk for emotional andbehavioral disorders (EBD). In milderforms, elopement may be simplydisruptive and annoying (e.g.,students leaving their seats withoutpermission, or students who do notwait, line up, or gather at theappropriate spots when transitioningfrom one location to another). In moreserious forms, students may run,literally leaving their classrooms,school buildings, and even schoolgrounds, which creates potentiallyserious safety concerns. Elopementoften requires teachers to reactimmediately to prevent students fromleaving instructional contexts andentering potentially dangeroussituations (e.g., running into traffic,encountering strangers, becominglost). This may result in teachersleaving other students unsupervisedwhile moving to block or retrieve theeloping student, which ultimatelyinterrupts instruction for all studentsin the classroom.

Not surprisingly, elopement mayhave long-term consequences forstudents as they continually misscritical instruction and time in theclassroom. Students who leavedesignated areas are likely to missinstructional stimuli andopportunities to practice valuable

skills alongside their peers. Theresulting skill deficits, coupled withthe staff support required to addressserious elopement, may result instudents being moved to morerestrictive educational placements(Garner, 1991).

Though it appears logical thatelopement may be associated with anescape function, researchers havedemonstrated that elopement may bemaintained by access to attention(Kodak, Grow, & Northup, 2004),tangibles (Gibson, Pennington,Stenhoff, & Hopper, 2009), andautomatic reinforcement (Ealcomata,Roane, Feeney, & Stephenson, 2010),as well as escape from aversivecontexts (Rapp, Vollmer, & Hovanetz,2006). This adds to the difficulty intreating elopement in that sometimesteachers' responses may actuallyincrease students' elopement. Eorexample, if a teacher uses physicalassistance to guide a student back tothe classroom and the function of thestudent's behavior was to gainattention, the teacher mayinadvertently reinforce the student'sproblem behavior. Eortunately,researchers have demonstrated thatthe function of elopement can bedetermined through behavioralassessment, and that the use offunction-based strategies can result infavorable outcomes.

The majority of research teamshave used function-based strategiesto address elopement. That is,strategies are selected that teachconventional responses (e.g., askingfor a break, following a directive) thathelp students access reinforcementmore effectively while weakeningstudents' effect on the environment

through elopement. Several researchteams have evaluated functionalcommunication training (ECT) toreduce elopement. Eollowingfunctional behavior assessments,researchers taught students to makeconventional requests for reinforcingstimuli in lieu of eloping (Falcomata,Roane, Eeeny, & Stephenson; Gibsonet al, 2009; Tarbox, Wallace, &Williams, 2003). Researchers alsohave applied a variety of otherreinforcement strategies. Eorexample. Piazza and colleagues(1997) conducted functional analysesto determine the function of threechildren's elopement. Eor each childthey implemented a differentreinforcement procedure thatresulted in decreases in elopement.These procedures includeddifferential reinforcement of otherbehavior (i.e., reinforcementcontingent on the nonoccurrence ofelopement), noncontingentreinforcement (i.e., free access to apreferred item), and differentialreinforcement of alternative behavior(i.e., access to running for appropriatewalking). Lang and colleagues (2010)conducted separate functionalanalyses in two settings (i.e.,classroom, resource room) for a childwith Asperger's syndrome (AS). Theyprovided noncontingent access topreferred stimuli (i.e., attention,DVD) in each setting, which resultedin decreases in elopement across bothinstructional areas.

Some researchers have combinedreinforcement and punishmentstrategies. Eor example, Kodak,Grow, and Northup (2004) usednoncontingent reinforcement, butalso applied time-out procedures

S P R I N G 20 12 3

LEAVE THE RUNNING SHOES AT HOME

contingent upon instances ofelopement for a child w ith attentiondeficit-hyperactivity disorder(ADHD). Rapp, Vollmer, andHovanetz (2005) used reinforcement,prompting, and blocking attempts ofelopement to decrease flopping to theground and elopement exhibited byan adolescent with autism. In thesestudies, the researchers implementedtreatment packages involvingpunishment procedures. Sincepunishment procedures have severalestablished side effects (Cooper,Heron, & Heward, 2007), it isimportant that educators firstconsider strategies that involveincreasing students' access toreinforcement.

Despite the risks associated withelopement, there is very littleresearch addressing interventions fortreating elopement. Moreover, fewinvestigations have been conductedin school settings. In the next section,we describe the application of adifferential reinforcement procedurein a public elementary school toaddress the elopement of a 7-year-oldmale with ASD. This study extendsthe research on elopement in threeways: (a) all sessions were conductedin a classroom setting, (b) theresearchers trained the classroomstaff to conduct all sessions, and (c) aprosthetic device, the Motiv Aider®(2005) was used to prompt theclassroom teacher to deliverreinforcement. The purpose of thisstudy was to assess the effects oftraining a special education teacher toimplement differential reinforcementprocedures to decrease studentelopement during a seatedinstructional activity.

Participant and Settings

Jackson was an African American7-year-old male diagnosed withautism. His teacher reported thatJackson frequently left instructionalsettings and wandered around theroom. He attended a self-containedspecial education classroom forstudents with moderate to severe

disabilities. One teacher and twoteacher assistants delivered themajority of instruction in theclassroom.

The teacher conducted allsessions during "calendar time," inwhich all eight students wereexpected to stay seated on the carpet,orient toward the teacher, andrespond to teacher direction. Thesessions were conducted atapproximately the same time eachday. The duration of the activityranged from 6 to 9 min.

Experimental Design andResponse Definition

A withdrawal design (ABA) wasused to investigate the effectivenessof differential reinforcement ofalternative behavior (DRA)procedures in reducing Jackson'selopement. Elopement was defined asleaving the carpet area, wanderingaround the carpet area (knees orbuttocks off of the carpet), and lyingor rolling on the floor. We used avideo camera to record all sessions.Across all baseline and treatmentconditions, we recorded data using a20 s partial interval recordingprocedure. Observation periods weredivided into 20 s intervals. Werecorded a "+" if the behavioroccurred at any point during theinterval. A second observerindependently watched thevideotapes and recorded instances ofelopement in order to determineinterobserver agreement (IOA) for25% of baseline sessions and 25% oftreatment sessions. IOA wascalculated by dividing agreements bythe sum of agreements anddisagreements and multiplying by100%. IOA was calculated to be 100%.

ProceduresFunctional Behavior Assessment.

The special education teachercompleted the Functional AssessmentScreening Tool (FAST) (Iwata, 1995).The FAST is an interview thatidentifies environmental factors thatmay influence problem behaviors).

The results of the FAST indicatedpositive reinforcement (i.e., attention)as a possible function of Jackson'selopement. In addition, we conducteddirect observations and recordednarrative antecedent-behavior-consequence (ABC) data. Duringobservations, staff membersconsistently delivered verbalattention more frequently followingoccurrences of elopement than duringappropriate behavior. Additionally,elopement occurred more frequentlyin situations where task demandswere low. The experimenterhypothesized that Jackson'selopement was maintained by socialpositive reinforcement (teacherattention).

Baseline. During baseline, theclassroom teacher prompted Jacksonto join the group on the carpet. IfJackson did not join the group, thestaff repeated the requests multipletimes. Between asking Jackson toreturn to his seat, she deliveredtypical task demands (e.g., "point tothe day of the week") to the entiregroup and randomly askedindividual students to respond tospecific directives.

Staff training. We conducted brieftrainings with Jackson's staff prior totreatment. We gave the lead teacher acopy of written procedures andverbally explained the researchdesign, treatment, and relevantprinciples of behavior addressed bythe study. Furthermore, the leadteacher received a Motiv Aider andobserved a demonstration of its use.We also gave specific directions to theclassroom teacher assistants andexplained the methods in terms ofbasic behavioral principles.

Differential reinforcement ofalternative behaviors (DRA). Duringintervention, the teacherimplemented DRA procedures. Atthe beginning of each session theteacher prompted Jackson to sit onthe carpet. If Jackson sat on the carpetwithin 5 s, the teacher deliveredpraise. If Jackson did not sit on thecarpet within 5 s, problem behaviorwas recorded as occurring. Once

4 BEYOND BEHAVIOR

LEAVE THE RUNNING SHOES AT HOME

Figure 1 PERCENTAGE OF INTERVALS OF ELOPEMENT FOR JACKSON DURING BASELINE, D R A , AND RETURN TO BASELINE CONDITIONS

-o0^

uO

"c

EQ.

whi

cf

.Et/>

D

of in

l

0

tag

c0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Baseline

Jackson's Elopement

DRA

1 i 1—'—I 1

Baseline

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Sessions

Jackson sat on the carpet, the teacherdelivered praise on a variable intervalschedule (VI-40 sec; average intervallength was 40 sec) for appropriatebehavior (i.e., looking, pointing,sitting on the carpet, verbalresponding). The teacher andexperimenter agreed to use a VI-40 secschedule because it allowed theteacher to deuver instruction to herother students with minimalinterruption. Problem behavior wasignored. Each interval was signaledusing a device called a Motiv Aider. AMotivAider emits a vibration at theend of a designated time interval. TheMotivAider is worn like a pager andcan be set to vibrate on a fixed orvariable interval schedule. If thestudent was engaged in problembehavior at the end of an interval, the

teacher was instructed to withholdreinforcement until the problembehavior ceased for 5 s.

Results

Figure 1 shows the effect of DRAon Jackson's elopement. Duringbaseline, Jackson exhibited high ratesof problem behavior (M = 50% ofintervals, range = 25-85%). WhenJackson's teacher delivered verbalattention contingent on appropriatebehavior (DRA), elopementdecreased by 72% from baselinesessions. (M = 14% of intervals,range = 0-28%). When the DRAprocedure was withdrawn, Jacksondemonstrated an increase inelopement. (M = 18.5% of intervals,range = 0-45%).

Discussion

The school-based study describedhere demonstrates how^ differentialreinforcement can be effectivelyapplied in public school contexts totreat elopement. We conducted afunctional behavioral assessment andthen developed an intervention toaddress the hypothesized function ofJackson's elopement. Since datasuggested that attention maintainedthe target behavior, we providedattention for alternative behaviorswhile simultaneously withholdingattention during instances of problembehavior. Jackson's elopementdecreased during intervention butdid not fully return to baseline levelswhen the treatment was withdrawn.One possible explanation is that the

SPRING 2 0 1 2 5

LEAVE THE RUNNING SHOES AT HOME

Table 1 GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING INTERVENTIONS FOR ELOPEMENT

1. Conduct a functional analysis to detern:\ine the function of elopement behavior.2. Consider safety issues first when designing and testing interventions.3. Implement strategies that teach students appropriate ways to access reinforcement first.4. Collect continuous data to monitor effects of intervention and make changes as needed.

teacher's use of a VI schedule ofreinforcement caused Jackson's newreplacement behaviors to becomeresistant to extinction. Additionalsessions in the return to baselinecondition may have produced furtherincreases in elopement thatapproached baseline levels.

In the current study, we extendedthe research on elopement bydeveloping effective and practicalprocedures for use in the classroomby a special education teacher. Wetrained the teacher to use DRAprocedures because theirimplementation did not require her toleave the area or otherwise interruptthe instruction of the other studentsin the classroom. In addition, theteacher was given a Motiv Aider toreduce the complexity of monitoringa VI schedule of reinforcement whilesimultaneously deliveringinstruction. The teacher reported thatshe found the procedures easy toimplement. In addition, the teacherindependently used the Motiv Aiderduring other instructional activitiesand with other students.

Though it was not included as adependent variable, informal datafrom video observations and teacherreports demonstrated additionalincreases in Jackson's appropriatebehavior. The teacher reportedincreases in hand raising, questionanswering, orienting toward theteacher, looking at the teacher, andstaying seated. The teacher alsoreported that she had increasedpositive feelings associated withJackson's levels of participation.

Recommendations

The current investigation andprevious research offer some general

guidelines for addressing elopementbehavior, which we believe can beapplied effectively and efficiently inclassroom contexts for a variety ofstudents with or at risk for emotionaland behavioral disorders. Theseguidelines are described in Table 1.First, teachers must conduct athorough functional behavioralassessment to determine thecontextual variables that evoke andmaintain elopement. Consider allcomponents of the environments,including both antecedents (e.g., taskdifficulty, clarity of expectations,availability of reinforcers) andconsequences (e.g., teacher attention,escape from demands, access tostereotypy). Also, consider thatdifferent reinforcers can maintainelopement across settings (e.g.,classroom, gym, cafeteria). Forexample, a child could elope during aphysical education class to avoid theloud screams of his classmates andlater in the day, elope to attract histeacher's attention during a silentreading activity. This step is critical inthat interventions selected withoutprior assessment data may result inundesirable outcomes, including thestrengthening of problem behavior.

Second, safety precautionsalways should be taken prior toimplementing interventions. Teachersshould first train new or alternativeresponses to elopement in controlledcontexts prior to more dangeroussettings. For example, the teachermight teach a student to recruitattention as a replacement behaviorfor elopement within the safety of theclassroom prior to practicing on theplayground. In the current study weused paraprofessionals to ensureJackson did not leave the classroom.When possible, teachers can employ

support staff to block access todangerous areas by standing atplayground entrances, hallway exits,and classroom doors. Third, teachersshould first attempt interventionsthat teach students appropriate waysto access reinforcement. Considerusing strategies to teach conventionalcommunication responses, orwalking behaviors commensuratewith their same age peers. Thesestrategies are more likely to improvelong-term outcomes for studentsand may result in less avoidantbehavior as a result of punitiveinterventions. Fourth, teachersshould collect continuous data (i.e.,every day) on student elopementand continually evaluate the effectsof treatment. If the student'sbehavior does not respond tointervention in a relatively shorttime (i.e., a few weeks), adjustmentsshould be made to the interventionplan. Finally, as mentionedpreviously the program team's firstpriority is student safety. If thestudent is engaging in a behaviorthat is dangerous (e.g., climbing on atable, running out the door),teachers must always intervene, butshould do so with just enoughinteraction to remove the child fromthe situation. These "emergencyresponses" to behavior should beincluded within the behaviorintervention plan.

Flopement can have serious andlasting ramifications if left untreated.Fortunately, researchers haveestablished that basic reinforcementprocedures can be used to intervenewith eloping students. Throughjudicious application of thesetechniques, which are often part ofspecial educafion teachers' existingrepertoire, educators can provide safe

6 B E Y O N D B E H A V I O R

LEAVE THE RUNNING SHOES AT HOME

and instructionally rich environmentsfor all students.

REFERENCESBodfish, J. W. (1992), AWOL behavior. In

E. A. Konarski, J. E. Favell, & J. E.Favell (Eds.), Manual for the assessmentand treatment of the behavior disorders ofpeople with mental retardation (TabBD17, pp. 1-8). Morganton, NC:Western Carolina CenterFoundation.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward,W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Fakomata, T. S., Roane, H. S., Feeney,B. J., & Stephenson, K. M. (2010).Assessment and treatment ofelopement maintained by access tostereotypy. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 43, 513-517.

Gamer, M. M. (1990). The treatment ofelopement in a retardate using agraduated levels program. Journal ofBehavior Therapy and ExperimentalPsychiatry, 21, 277-280.

Gibson, J. L., Pennington, R., Stenhoff, D.,& Hopper, J. (2009). Using desktopvideo conferencing to deliverinterventions to a preschool studentwith autism. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 29, 214-225.

Iwata, B. A. (1995). Functional assessmentscreening tool. Gainesville, FL: TheFlorida Center on Self-injury.

Kodak, T., Grow, L., & Northup, J. (2004).Functional analysis and treatmentof elopement for a child with attentiondeficit disorder. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 37, 229-232.

Lang, R., Davis, T., O'Reilly, M.,Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M., Sigafoos,J., & ... Regester, A. (2010).

Functional analysis and treatment ofelopement across two school settings.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,43, 113-118.

Motiv Aider [Apparatus]. (2011). ThiefRiver Falls, MN: BehavioralDynamics.

Piazza, G. G., Hartley, G. P., Bowman, L. G.,Ruyter, J, M., Lindaur, S. E., & Saiontz,D. M. (1997). Fmictional analysis andtreatment of elopement. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 30, 653-672.

Rapp, J. T., Vollmer, T. R., & Hovanetz,A. N. (2006). Evaluation and treatmentof swimming pool avoidanceexhibited by an adolescent girl withautism. Behavior Therapy, 36,101-105.

Tarbox, R. S. F., Wallace, M. D., &Williams, L. (2003). Assessment andtreatment of elopement: A replicationand extension. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 36, 239-244.

S P R I N G 2 0 12 7

Copyright of Beyond Behavior is the property of Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.