Use of a paired-stimulus demand analysis to evaluate demands for inclusion in functional analyses

Amanda N. Zangrillo, Christina A. Simmons, Wayne W. Fisher, Todd M. Owen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Clinicians regularly use both indirect and direct assessments to identify preferred stimuli to include in control conditions and positive reinforcement test conditions in a functional analysis (FA). However, clinicians often rely on indirect assessment alone (e.g., caregiver report) to identify aversive stimuli to include in negative reinforcement test conditions. In this study, we evaluate a paired-stimulus demand analysis and validate assessment results via FA. Results indicate that, for all 4 participants, the demands selected least often evoked higher rates of destructive behavior than more frequently selected demands. We identified an escape function for all 4 participants in the escape–least selected (LS) condition (true positive finding) and for only 1 participant in the escape–most selected (MS) condition (false negative finding for 3 of 4 participants). These results support the utility of empirically deriving stimuli for inclusion in the negative reinforcement test condition of an FA to decrease the likelihood of false negative findings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of applied behavior analysis
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

demand analysis
functional analysis
stimulus
inclusion
reinforcement
Caregivers
caregiver
Inclusion
Stimulus
Reinforcement (Psychology)
Functional Analysis
Reinforcement
Clinicians

Keywords

  • demand assessment
  • escape-maintained problem behavior
  • functional analysis
  • negative reinforcement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Applied Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

@article{8b6b2cd693704b4ab2e2d33d969829eb,
title = "Use of a paired-stimulus demand analysis to evaluate demands for inclusion in functional analyses",
abstract = "Clinicians regularly use both indirect and direct assessments to identify preferred stimuli to include in control conditions and positive reinforcement test conditions in a functional analysis (FA). However, clinicians often rely on indirect assessment alone (e.g., caregiver report) to identify aversive stimuli to include in negative reinforcement test conditions. In this study, we evaluate a paired-stimulus demand analysis and validate assessment results via FA. Results indicate that, for all 4 participants, the demands selected least often evoked higher rates of destructive behavior than more frequently selected demands. We identified an escape function for all 4 participants in the escape–least selected (LS) condition (true positive finding) and for only 1 participant in the escape–most selected (MS) condition (false negative finding for 3 of 4 participants). These results support the utility of empirically deriving stimuli for inclusion in the negative reinforcement test condition of an FA to decrease the likelihood of false negative findings.",
keywords = "demand assessment, escape-maintained problem behavior, functional analysis, negative reinforcement",
author = "Zangrillo, {Amanda N.} and Simmons, {Christina A.} and Fisher, {Wayne W.} and Owen, {Todd M.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/jaba.651",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis",
issn = "0021-8855",
publisher = "Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of a paired-stimulus demand analysis to evaluate demands for inclusion in functional analyses

AU - Zangrillo, Amanda N.

AU - Simmons, Christina A.

AU - Fisher, Wayne W.

AU - Owen, Todd M.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Clinicians regularly use both indirect and direct assessments to identify preferred stimuli to include in control conditions and positive reinforcement test conditions in a functional analysis (FA). However, clinicians often rely on indirect assessment alone (e.g., caregiver report) to identify aversive stimuli to include in negative reinforcement test conditions. In this study, we evaluate a paired-stimulus demand analysis and validate assessment results via FA. Results indicate that, for all 4 participants, the demands selected least often evoked higher rates of destructive behavior than more frequently selected demands. We identified an escape function for all 4 participants in the escape–least selected (LS) condition (true positive finding) and for only 1 participant in the escape–most selected (MS) condition (false negative finding for 3 of 4 participants). These results support the utility of empirically deriving stimuli for inclusion in the negative reinforcement test condition of an FA to decrease the likelihood of false negative findings.

AB - Clinicians regularly use both indirect and direct assessments to identify preferred stimuli to include in control conditions and positive reinforcement test conditions in a functional analysis (FA). However, clinicians often rely on indirect assessment alone (e.g., caregiver report) to identify aversive stimuli to include in negative reinforcement test conditions. In this study, we evaluate a paired-stimulus demand analysis and validate assessment results via FA. Results indicate that, for all 4 participants, the demands selected least often evoked higher rates of destructive behavior than more frequently selected demands. We identified an escape function for all 4 participants in the escape–least selected (LS) condition (true positive finding) and for only 1 participant in the escape–most selected (MS) condition (false negative finding for 3 of 4 participants). These results support the utility of empirically deriving stimuli for inclusion in the negative reinforcement test condition of an FA to decrease the likelihood of false negative findings.

KW - demand assessment

KW - escape-maintained problem behavior

KW - functional analysis

KW - negative reinforcement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074037721&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074037721&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jaba.651

DO - 10.1002/jaba.651

M3 - Article

C2 - 31605376

AN - SCOPUS:85074037721

JO - Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

JF - Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

SN - 0021-8855

ER -