Demand Is Exploding In 2007, nearly 58% of public libraries reported that their connectivity speed was insufficient some or all of the time. (1) The increased demand for public library Internet access and the increased bandwidth required to support today's Internet applications and services have created a perfect storm of library connectivity challenges. As one Georgia library staff member said, we are finding that demand increases to fill available supply, whatever that is... [we're] always playing catch-up. (2) As demand increases and networks slow, lines for Internet access will only become longer, as it simply will take longer for users to access Web-based e-mail, view instructional videos, or download course materials. The Connectivity Study showed that inadequate bandwidth adversely affects not only library patrons, but library staff as well. Since most staff networks run on the same broadband connection as the public access terminals, librarians reported they had to complete network-intensive work in the morning hours, when the public load on their broadband connection was the lightest. Library staff also said that sometimes the insufficiency of bandwidth affects traditional library activities, like checking out books. One library reported that 10 dedicated computers used to check out materials required over 95 percent of the available bandwidth. Clearly, network management techniques can be improved in this specific instance, but the larger issue of shared connectivity and its effects on librarians' abilities to provide quality services remains. Insufficient bandwidth can restrict a library's ability to innovate. The Connectivity Study interviews revealed that a lack of bandwidth can put intellectual limits on librarians, meaning that they will not consider new uses of technology because they know they cannot support it. (3) This is especially troubling as libraries attempt to expand their services to better reflect the needs and desires of the 21st century library user. Other libraries rejected or delayed making some content available because so many libraries within the state did not have enough bandwidth to take advantage of the services associated with that content. (4) Planning Is Crucial How do libraries sustain the speeds and robust connectivity more and more users are demanding at the public library? Librarians may assume that bandwidth planning is tied to the number of Internet access computers, but bandwidth is also dependent on the activities conducted on each computer. For example, a user watching a mandatory government video to get a commercial driver's license (as reported by one of the Connectivity Study respondents) takes up more bandwidth than a patron engaged in filling out a job application online. The Connectivity Study reported that the practice of allocating computing funds based upon the number of public access and staff computers be seen as strictly a funding mechanism, not a bandwidth allocation formula. (5) The Connectivity Study concluded that any configuration should be scalable because more bandwidth will be needed. Libraries need to look beyond the applications that patrons are using today and estimate the demands of tomorrow when planning for bandwidth needs. Libraries should also take into account that adding wireless routers without increasing total bandwidth will compound the connectivity problem. The Connectivity Study recommended that the absolute floor for broadband deployment should be 1.5 Mbps (T1). In fact, this speed is already insufficient for many The 2006 Public Libraries and the Internet study summed it up: It is time to move beyond connectivity type and speed questions and consider issues of bandwidth sufficiency, quality, and range of networked services that should be available to the public from public libraries. (6) As necessary bandwidth is always a moving target, perhaps a more dynamic, flexible plan should be implemented that can assess basic quality of service standards that can more accurately define acceptable levels of telecommunication services for the library community. …
Using an arbitrary response, we evaluated fixed‐time (FT) schedules that were either similar or dissimilar to a baseline (response‐dependent) reinforcement schedule and extinction. Results suggested that both FT schedules and extinction resulted in decreased responding. However, FT schedules were more effective in reducing response rates if the FT reinforcer rate was dissimilar to baseline reinforcer rates. Possible reasons for this difference were evaluated with data analysis methods designed to identify adventitious response‐reinforcer relations.
We compared the effects of reinforcing compliance with either positive reinforcement (edible items) or negative reinforcement (a break) on 5 participants' escape‐maintained problem behavior. Both procedures were assessed with or without extinction. Results showed that compliance was higher and problem behavior was lower for all participants when compliance produced an edible item rather than a break. Treatment gains were achieved without the use of extinction. Results are discussed regarding the use of positive reinforcement to treat escape behavior.
The multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement (MSWO) preference assessment is commonly used in behavior‐analytic research and practice. As originally published, the MSWO included 5 sessions in an effort to confirm stimulus preferences. Subsequent researchers have evaluated the validity of MSWO outcomes when the assessment is abbreviated. Generally, valid outcomes have been noted for 3‐session MSWOs (that is, the outcomes match those of the 5‐session version), while validity outcomes for 1‐ or 2‐session MSWOs have varied across studies. The current study utilized data from 157 MSWO preference assessments conducted in previously published research with 49 total participants and analyzed the extent to which 1‐session or 2‐session variations of those assessments would have yielded similar outcomes as a 3‐session assessment. Results indicate that the hierarchies produced by both abbreviated formats were strongly correlated with those produced by a 3‐session assessment. However, neither 1‐ nor 2‐session MSWOs reliably identified the same highest‐preferred stimuli as a 3‐session MSWO.
