Further comparison of isolated and synthesized contingencies in functional analyses

Synthesized alternative reinforcement and resurgence

In treatments based on differential reinforcement of alternative behavior, applied researchers and clinicians often provide multiple, qualitatively different reinforcers (i.e., synthesized reinforcement) rather than a single reinforcer (i.e., isolated reinforcement) contingent on alternative behavior. Some research shows that providing synthesized reinforcement for alternative responses within such treatments produces more rapid and complete suppression of target behavior; however, there is limited research evaluating the durability of these effects during treatment disruptions. Conceptual explanations of resurgence (e.g., resurgence as choice, context theory) suggest that treatments that include synthesized alternative reinforcement may lead to more resurgence of target behavior when alternative reinforcement is disrupted relative to treatments using isolated reinforcement. We evaluated this hypothesis within a three-phase resurgence evaluation. We exposed rats to isolated or synthesized reinforcement for alternative responding in the second phase, and we exposed rats to extinction in the third phase. Synthesized alternative reinforcement produced more rapid and complete suppression of target behavior than did isolated reinforcement in the second phase; however, exposure to extinction following synthesized reinforcement produced more resurgence. We discuss these results in terms of their implications for applied research and their support for current conceptual explanations for resurgence.

Retrospective consecutive controlled case series of outcomes for functional analyses of severe destructive behavior

Functional analysis methods allow clinicians to determine the variable(s) that maintain destructive behavior. Previous reviews of functional analysis outcomes have included large samples of published and unpublished data sets (i.e., clinical samples). The purpose of this review was to conduct a large retrospective consecutive controlled case series of clinical functional analyses. We sought to identify the prevalence of differentiation, procedural modifications for undifferentiated and differentiated cases, and identified function(s) of destructive behavior. In addition, we extended the existing literature by determining whether functional analysis differentiation and function varied when single or multiple behavior topographies were consequated in the functional analysis. We discuss our findings considering previously published functional analysis reviews, provide avenues for future research, and offer suggestions for clinical practice.

Examining patterns suggestive of acquisition during functional analyses: A consecutive controlled series of 116 cases

The functional analysis approach described by Iwata et al. (1982/1994) has been used widely to determine the variables evoking and maintaining challenging behavior. However, one potential concern with conducting functional analyses is that repeated exposure to contingencies may induce a novel functional relation. To examine the likelihood of these potential iatrogenic effects, we evaluated social test conditions of the functional analysis for 116 participants and searched for patterns of responding indicative of acquisition. Patterns suggestive of acquisition occurred in 13.70% of tangible reinforcement conditions; however, the prevalence was only slightly lower in the attention condition (8.75%). Much lower prevalence was observed for the escape condition (2.13%). When grouped by quotient score, a pattern of acquisition was just as likely to be observed in the attention condition as in the tangible condition. Additionally, patterns indicative of acquisition were no more likely to be observed with participants who emitted automatically reinforced challenging behavior.

A comparative effectiveness trial of functional behavioral assessment methods

Clinicians report primarily using functional behavioral assessment (FBA) methods that do not include functional analyses. However, studies examining the correspondence between functional analyses and other types of FBAs have produced inconsistent results. In addition, although functional analyses are considered the gold standard, their contribution toward successful treatment compared with other FBA methods remains unclear. This comparative effectiveness study, conducted with 57 young children with autism spectrum disorder, evaluated the results of FBAs that did (n = 26) and did not (n = 31) include a functional analysis. Results of FBAs with and without functional analyses showed modest correspondence. All participants who completed functional communication training achieved successful outcomes regardless of the type of FBA conducted.

Evaluating Preference for Functional and Nonfunctional Stimuli in the Treatment of Destructive Behavior

The effects of including nonfunctional stimuli that may appear in the natural environment during treatment remain unclear. The current study evaluated preference for differential reinforcement of communication (DRC) treatments with functional reinforcers only and a combination of functional and nonfunctional stimuli. Both treatment conditions resulted in a decrease in destructive behavior and an increase in the communication response for all participants. Two participants preferred the combined DRC condition, whereas one participant showed equal preference for the combined condition and one of the functional conditions.

Functional analysis of problem behavior: A 40-year review

Extensive reviews of functional analysis literature were conducted 10 (Beavers et al., 2013) and 20 (Hanley et al., 2003) years ago; we expanded this review to capture the vast and innovative functional analysis research that has occurred over the past decade. Our review produced 1,333 functional analysis outcomes from 326 studies on the functional analysis of problem behavior between June 2012 and May 2022. Some characteristics of functional analysis studies were similar across the current and previous two reviews (e.g., child participants, developmental disability diagnosis, use of line graphs depicting session means, differentiated response outcomes). Other characteristics deviated from the previous two reviews (e.g., increase in autistic representation, outpatient settings, use of supplementary assessments, the inclusion of tangible conditions, and multiple function outcomes; decrease in session durations). We update previously reported participant and methodological characteristics, summarize outcomes, comment on recent trends, and propose future directions in the functional analysis literature.