Goal-ossal Makeover: Reinventing Tolerance Targets for BCBAs
This week we’re looking at tolerating goals a little more closely. In fact, we’ll be providing examples of tolerating goals in the fashion they’re usually written (but shouldn’t be). And then, we’ll provide a few examples that embody what we’re really trying to get at when writing them in the first place. Before we get into that, if you haven’t been caught up on this topic, I’ll do so.
I’ve written previously on this. BCBAs tend to write a lot of “tolerating goals” for kids. For example: Learner tolerates the removal of a preferred item for 60 seconds without engaging in problem behavior OR Learner waits for 60 seconds without engaging in problem behavior. And there’s a huge problem here. Without getting into the nitty gritty of it all—you can read more about that here and here—tolerating goals like this are woefully lacking in helping learners and RBTs.
First, they don’t tell us what the learner should be doing for this particular program. The way it is written tells us what the learner should NOT be doing (they should not be engaging in problem behavior) and says nothing more than this. However, since our learners aren’t robots, they cannot simply hit the “power off” button on themselves when a preferred item is removed, or when they are instructed to wait for 60 seconds. As human beings, we’re always on, and so are they. We’re always behaving…we’re always doing. Sometimes our behavior is measurable and seen. Other times it is private and only in our head (a private event). But we’re never unbehaving…there is no “off” button. Asking our learner to power themselves down is asking them to do the impossible. As a result, our tolerating goals need to be written in a way that shows the learner (and the RBT) what to do when the aversive event or new scenario takes place. More on this below.
The second issue with tolerating goals is that they are taught hopefully. BCBAs will instruct the therapist to remove an iPad from the learner’s possession…over and over again…hoping that the learner somehow tolerates its removal and (magically!) no longer engages in problem behavior. BCBAs will have therapists instruct a learner to sit in a chair, set a timer, and tell them to wait hoping that this somehow curbs the learner’s desire to get up and explore their environment. Hopefully if we just keep running trials they’ll get used to it and just give up and stop engaging in problem behavior, right?
The final issue, of course, is that it makes the therapist, the activity, and everything associated with it a highly aversive event, getting all parties involved much farther away from their intended destination.
So what’s a better avenue here?
Well, first, we write goals that tell the RBT and/or learner what they need to be doing when the aversive event takes place. They answer the question: What should the learner be doing when the preferred item is removed? Or, What should the learner be doing when they are told to wait?
Here are several tolerating goals written in the usual fashion with additional targets written in a fashion that is…well…just better.
Before: Learner will tolerate a preferred adult’s attention being diverted for 60 seconds.
Instead:
In instances where a preferred adult engages with another person, learner will engage in one action with a highly preferred activity or item when it is given to them.
In instances where a preferred adult engages with another person, learner will engage in ten actions with a highly preferred activity or item when it is given to them.
In instances where a preferred adult engages with another person, learner will walk over, scan, and engage in one action with a highly preferred activity.
In instances where a preferred adult engages with another person, learner will walk over, scan, and engage in ten actions with any number of highly preferred activities.
In instances where a preferred adult engages with another person, learner will walk over, scan, and engage in ten actions with any number of activities.
Before: Tolerates the removal of a preferred item or activity.
Instead:
Learner will engage in one action with a highly preferred item /edible/activity that is handed to them when another highly preferred item or activity is removed.
Learner will walk over, scan, and engage in at least one action with any highly preferred item /edible/activity when another highly preferred item or activity is removed.
Learner will walk over, scan, and engage in x number of actions with any appropriate and available item or activity when another highly preferred item or activity is removed.
Before: Learner will tolerate a peer being in personal space for 60 seconds.
Instead:
Learner will engage in one action with a highly preferred item or activity when a peer is sitting within two feet of them.
Learner will engage in ten actions with a highly preferred item or activity when it is handed to them while a peer is sitting within two feet of them for the duration of all actions.
Learner will engage in ten actions with a neutral value item or activity when it is handed to them while a peer is sitting within two feet of them for the duration of all actions.
Learner will engage in ten mastered actions when asked to do so while a peer is sitting within two feet of them for the duration of all actions.
Before: Learner will tolerate wearing headphones for 60 seconds.
Instead:
Learner will engage in one action with a highly preferred item/activity while wearing headphones.
Learner will engage in x actions with a highly preferred item/activity while wearing headphones.
Learner will engage in x actions with a neutral valued item/activity while wearing headphones.
Learner will engage in ten mastered tasks when asked to do so while wearing headphones.
Learner will walk into ten different rooms/areas of the center while wearing headphones.
Before: Learner will tolerate waiting in an area for 3 minutes without problem behavior.
Instead:
Learner will sit and engage in at least x actions with highly preferred items/edibles/activities when they are offered to them and asked to wait in a waiting area.
Learner will engage in x actions with neutral value fidget items (fidget spinner, stress ball, etc.) when offered to them and asked to wait in a waiting area.
Learner will turn x pages of a book or magazine when offered to them and asked to wait in a waiting area.
Learner will walk over, scan, and select a toy or magazine when asked to wait in a waiting area.
Additional Pointers:
Always teach a mand! Give the learner options for manding out of the situation if they need to. Again, we don’t want these programs to be so aversive that the activities become aversive in nature.
Introduce multiple programs—don’t simply go one at a time. Each of the scenarios above shows multiple targets because we want to teach the learner a variety of alternative behaviors given each aversive situation. For example, we don’t simply want to teach a learner how to engage with highly preferred items/edibles/activities in a waiting area. We ALSO want to teach them how to engage with neutral value items, fidget items, magazines, etc.
Continue to find new scenarios and new alternative behaviors to help your learner tolerate the aversive situation. If the aversive scenario that you’re trying to address is REALLY aversive, you may need to continue to target this area…the opportunities to teach other alternative behaviors are endless.
Don’t get me wrong, this stuff is never easy. And coming up with the right goals can be pretty hard to do. I’ve actively taken a step to eliminate as much of the headaches as I can in these areas. Check out bxmastery.com—an ABA goal database that shows you where to start, and where to go next, when it comes to creating quality ABA goals.
Have a clinical question and need it answered? Join our exclusive Facebook Group!