Comparisons of synthesized and individual reinforcement contingencies during functional analysis

Wayne W Fisher, Brian D Greer, Patrick W. Romani, Amanda N Zangrillo, Todd M. Owen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Researchers typically modify individual functional analysis (FA) conditions after results are inconclusive (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, and Hanratty (2014) introduced a marked departure from this practice, using an interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA). In the test condition, they delivered multiple contingencies simultaneously (e.g., attention and escape) after each occurrence of problem behavior; in the control condition, they delivered those same reinforcers noncontingently and continuously. In the current investigation, we compared the results of the IISCA with a more traditional FA in which we evaluated each putative reinforcer individually. Four of 5 participants displayed destructive behavior that was sensitive to the individual contingencies evaluated in the traditional FA. By contrast, none of the participants showed a response pattern consistent with the assumption of the IISCA. We discuss the implications of these findings on the development of accurate and efficient functional analyses.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)596-616
Number of pages21
JournalJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis
Volume49
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2016

Fingerprint

functional analysis
reinforcement
contingency
Interviews
interview
Research Personnel
Reinforcement (Psychology)
Functional Analysis
Reinforcement
Contingency

Keywords

  • assessment of problem behavior
  • false-positive outcome
  • functional analysis
  • independent effects
  • interaction effects

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology
  • Philosophy
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Comparisons of synthesized and individual reinforcement contingencies during functional analysis. / Fisher, Wayne W; Greer, Brian D; Romani, Patrick W.; Zangrillo, Amanda N; Owen, Todd M.

In: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol. 49, No. 3, 01.09.2016, p. 596-616.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{571cc2ff16f648588a2e546b8dfbee8e,
title = "Comparisons of synthesized and individual reinforcement contingencies during functional analysis",
abstract = "Researchers typically modify individual functional analysis (FA) conditions after results are inconclusive (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, and Hanratty (2014) introduced a marked departure from this practice, using an interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA). In the test condition, they delivered multiple contingencies simultaneously (e.g., attention and escape) after each occurrence of problem behavior; in the control condition, they delivered those same reinforcers noncontingently and continuously. In the current investigation, we compared the results of the IISCA with a more traditional FA in which we evaluated each putative reinforcer individually. Four of 5 participants displayed destructive behavior that was sensitive to the individual contingencies evaluated in the traditional FA. By contrast, none of the participants showed a response pattern consistent with the assumption of the IISCA. We discuss the implications of these findings on the development of accurate and efficient functional analyses.",
keywords = "assessment of problem behavior, false-positive outcome, functional analysis, independent effects, interaction effects",
author = "Fisher, {Wayne W} and Greer, {Brian D} and Romani, {Patrick W.} and Zangrillo, {Amanda N} and Owen, {Todd M.}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/jaba.314",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "49",
pages = "596--616",
journal = "Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis",
issn = "0021-8855",
publisher = "Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparisons of synthesized and individual reinforcement contingencies during functional analysis

AU - Fisher, Wayne W

AU - Greer, Brian D

AU - Romani, Patrick W.

AU - Zangrillo, Amanda N

AU - Owen, Todd M.

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Researchers typically modify individual functional analysis (FA) conditions after results are inconclusive (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, and Hanratty (2014) introduced a marked departure from this practice, using an interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA). In the test condition, they delivered multiple contingencies simultaneously (e.g., attention and escape) after each occurrence of problem behavior; in the control condition, they delivered those same reinforcers noncontingently and continuously. In the current investigation, we compared the results of the IISCA with a more traditional FA in which we evaluated each putative reinforcer individually. Four of 5 participants displayed destructive behavior that was sensitive to the individual contingencies evaluated in the traditional FA. By contrast, none of the participants showed a response pattern consistent with the assumption of the IISCA. We discuss the implications of these findings on the development of accurate and efficient functional analyses.

AB - Researchers typically modify individual functional analysis (FA) conditions after results are inconclusive (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, and Hanratty (2014) introduced a marked departure from this practice, using an interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA). In the test condition, they delivered multiple contingencies simultaneously (e.g., attention and escape) after each occurrence of problem behavior; in the control condition, they delivered those same reinforcers noncontingently and continuously. In the current investigation, we compared the results of the IISCA with a more traditional FA in which we evaluated each putative reinforcer individually. Four of 5 participants displayed destructive behavior that was sensitive to the individual contingencies evaluated in the traditional FA. By contrast, none of the participants showed a response pattern consistent with the assumption of the IISCA. We discuss the implications of these findings on the development of accurate and efficient functional analyses.

KW - assessment of problem behavior

KW - false-positive outcome

KW - functional analysis

KW - independent effects

KW - interaction effects

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027943250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027943250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jaba.314

DO - 10.1002/jaba.314

M3 - Article

VL - 49

SP - 596

EP - 616

JO - Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

JF - Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

SN - 0021-8855

IS - 3

ER -