Increasing social time allocation and concomitant effects on mands, item engagement, and rigid or repetitive behavior

Using Risk Ratios to Quantify Potential Behavior-Environment Relations

Behavior-environment functional relations are the units of explanation in applied behavior analysis (ABA). Whether hypothesized experimentally or descriptively, quantification of putative functional relations improves our ability to predict and influence behavior. Risk ratios are an accessible, straightforward quantitative analysis that can serve this purpose. They have been employed to great effect in other fields (e.g., medicine, public health), but are rarely used within ABA. In this tutorial, we describe risk ratios and how they are calculated, discuss why risk ratios are well suited for quantifying behavior-environment relations, and illustrate their utility and applicability across five demonstrations from real clinical cases. Recommendations for the use of risk ratios in research and practice are discussed.

A Continuum of Methods for Assessing Preference for Conversation Topics

Among individuals with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders (ASD), conversation topic preference could influence social skills in many ways. For example, an individual with advanced vocal-verbal skills, but just learning to join a conversation, might be less inclined to participate if the topic chosen is not preferred. However, commonly used preference assessment procedures have not been applied to evaluating conversation-topic preferences. Therefore, the purpose of the current experiment was to conduct three different types of assessments that varied in efficiency, the degree of certainty they allow, and clients with whom they are likely to be applicable and acceptable. In particular, we conducted a self-report preference assessment, a multiple-stimulus-without-replacement (MSWO) preference assessment, and a response restriction conversation assessment (RRCA). Each assessment identified a preferred topic of conversation, but the RRCA was the only assessment that was able to differentiate which topics would maintain a conversation. Implications for assessment and intervention procedures related to complex social skills are discussed and directions for future research are proposed.

Secondary and within-session analyses to improve the feasibility and precision of assessments of sociability

Previous research has improved the feasibility and precision of assessments of sociability, but further progress is warranted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate secondary measures and within-session analyses to further improve the feasibility and precision of assessments of sociability. We reanalyzed previously published assessment results to evaluate whether initial and conditional (i.e., on therapist movement) approach and avoidance may approximate established continuous measures. Results indicated that both measures were strongly correlated with the percentage of session on the social side and may provide a more feasible approximation for use in clinical practice. We also conducted within-session analyses of these assessment results to evaluate whether they may improve precision or clarity. Correlational and matching-based analyses of the within-session data suggest that clear conclusions may be drawn from the results of a single session and facilitate a richer understanding of sociability. Implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed.

Single- vs. combined-category preference assessments for edible, leisure, and social-interaction stimuli

A concern when conducting combined-category preference assessments is the potential for displacement effects, a shift in the preference ranking from highly preferred to moderately or less preferred for stimuli in two of three stimulus categories (e.g., edible, leisure, or social-interaction). In this study, we evaluated potential displacement effects in combined-category arrays of edible, leisure, and social-interaction stimuli for five individuals with autism. First, single-category paired-stimulus preference assessments were implemented to identify two highly preferred stimuli from each category. When these stimuli were included in a combined-category preference assessment, displacement effects were observed for three of five participants. During a subsequent reinforcer assessment, stimuli identified as less preferred in the combined-category preference assessment functioned as reinforcers for two participants. Additionally, although social interaction was not identified as highly preferred for three of the five participants, it functioned as a reinforcer for four participants.

A review of methods of assessing preference for social stimuli

Research on preference and reinforcer assessments has historically focused on the evaluation of edible and leisure reinforcers, but the identification and use of individualized social reinforcers may be beneficial for several reasons. Recently, many studies have evaluated methods of assessing preference for social stimuli. The procedures and outcomes across these studies have varied greatly, and the current state of evidence for methods of assessing preference for social stimuli remains unclear. Thus, we conducted a review to synthesize all previous research in this area, evaluate the evidence for the utility of this general methodology, and identify factors that may influence its utility. Our results suggest that social preference assessments are likely to produce results that correspond with reinforcer assessment hierarchies. Preference assessment modality was one factor that influenced utility; video-based preference assessments had greater correspondence with reinforcer assessments than did other modalities. Directions for future research and implications for the use of social preference assessments in research and practices are discussed.

The matching law provides a quantitative description of social time allocation in children with autism

Recent research has developed and evaluated assessments of sociability in which time allocation near or away from an adult who initiates social interactions is used to characterize the participant as social, indifferent, or avoidant of social interaction. Though these qualitative outcomes have been useful, no studies have evaluated methods of obtaining more quantitative measures of sociability. The matching law has been demonstrated to describe a wide range of human behavior and may also be useful in describing social time allocation. We adapted the matching law and assessment of sociability procedures with the aim of providing a more precise, quantitative measure of sociability. We fitted the matching equation to the social time allocation data of 8 children with autism spectrum disorder. The equation was effective in quantifying sociability, accounted for a large proportion of variance in participants' behavior, did so equally well for participants who were social and avoidant, and provided a more sensitive measure relative to those used in previous research. The implications of this methodology, its potential utility, and directions for future research are discussed.