Functional assessment and treatment of life-threatening drug ingestion in a dually diagnosed youth

Decreasing excessive functional communication responses while treating destructive behavior using response restriction

Functional communication training (FCT) is an established treatment for destructive behavior that missucceeds in about 37% of cases when the reinforcement schedule for the functional communication response (FCR) is thinned using multiples schedules (mult FCT; Hagopian, Boelter, & Jarmolowicz, 2011). In this investigation, we evaluated the use of response restriction FCT (RR FCT) in a cohort of patients with poorly differentiated responding of the FCR during mult FCT. Results showed that (a) RR FCT maintained high rates of correct FCRs during the reinforcement component of RR FCT without increasing destructive behavior; (b) children displayed highly discriminated FCRs when an FCR card and a control card were simultaneously available during the reinforcement component of RR FCT; and (c) near-zero rates of destructive behavior were observed during the last five sessions of the terminal reinforcement schedule. Results are discussed relative to differences between mult FCT and RR FCT and successive and simultaneous discriminations.

Functional assessment of problem behavior: dispelling myths, overcoming implementation obstacles, and developing new lore

Hundreds of studies have shown the efficacy of treatments for problem behavior based on an understanding of its function. Assertions regarding the legitimacy of different types of functional assessment vary substantially across published articles, and best practices regarding the functional assessment process are sometimes difficult to cull from the empirical literature or from published discussions of the behavioral assessment process. A number of myths regarding the functional assessment process, which appear to be pervasive within different behavior-analytic research and practice communities, will be reviewed in the context of an attempt to develop new lore regarding the functional assessment process. Frequently described obstacles to implementing a critical aspect of the functional assessment process, the functional analysis, will be reviewed in the context of solutions for overcoming them. Finally, the aspects of the functional assessment process that should be exported to others versus those features that should remain the sole technological property of behavior analysts will be discussed.

Assessment and behavioral treatment of feeding and sleeping disorders in children with autism spectrum disorders

Children diagnosed with autism or autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are more likely than other children to exhibit behaviors characteristic of a feeding or sleeping disorder. Parents of children with these disorders may be extremely concerned about the health and safety of their child. Sleeping and feeding problems can cause a great deal of stress to parents and other family members. Behavioral assessment and treatment procedures have been developed to address behavior problems related to sleeping and feeding disorders. This article reviews the literature about assessment and treatment, and provides recommendations regarding services to family members of individuals diagnosed with ASD and feeding or sleeping disorders.

Functional analysis of problem behavior: a review

Functional analysis methodology focuses on the identification of variables that influence the occurrence of problem behavior and has become a hallmark of contemporary approaches to behavioral assessment. In light of the widespread use of pretreatment functional analyses in articles published in this and other journals, we reviewed the literature in an attempt to identify best practices and directions for future research. Studies included in the present review were those in which (a) a pretreatment assessment based on (b) direct observation and measurement of (c) problem behavior was conducted under (d) at least two conditions involving manipulation of an environmental variable in an attempt (e) to demonstrate a relation between the environmental event and behavior. Studies that met the criteria for inclusion were quantified and critically evaluated along a number of dimensions related to subject and setting characteristics, parametric and qualitative characteristics of the methodology, types of assessment conditions, experimental designs, topographies of problem behaviors, and the manner in which data were displayed and analyzed.

A validity study on the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) Scale: predicting treatment success for self-injury, aggression, and stereotypies

We investigated the validity of the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF), a checklist designed to assess antecedent behavior, using a sample of 398 persons with mental retardation and a targeted maladaptive behavior of self-injurious behavior, aggression, or stereotypies. The QABF was used successfully to derive clear behavioral functions for most individuals (84%) across all three target behaviors. Further, subjects with treatments developed from functional assessment (QABF results) improved significantly when compared to controls receiving standard treatments not based on functional analysis. Implications of the present findings for assessing and treating maladaptive behaviors are discussed.

Functional analysis and treatment of destructive behavior maintained by termination of "don't" (and symmetrical "do") requests

We used descriptive assessment information to generate hypotheses regarding the function of destructive behavior for 2 individuals who displayed near-zero rates of problem behavior during an experimental functional analysis using methods similar to Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994). The descriptive data suggested that destructive behavior occurred primarily when caregivers issued requests to the participants that interfered with ongoing high-probability (and presumably highly preferred) behaviors (i.e., a "don't" or a symmetrical "do" request). Subsequent experimental analyses showed that destructive behavior was maintained by contingent termination of "don't" and symmetrical "do" requests but not by termination of topographically similar "do" requests. These results suggested that destructive behavior may have been maintained by positive reinforcement (i.e., termination of the "don't" request allowed the individual to return to a highly preferred activity). Finally, a treatment (functional communication training plus extinction) developed on the basis of these analyses reduced destructive behavior to near-zero levels.

Treatment of pica through multiple analyses of its reinforcing functions

We conducted functional analyses of the pica of 3 participants. The pica of 1 participant appeared to be maintained by automatic reinforcement; that of the other 2 participants appeared to be multiply controlled by social and automatic reinforcement. Subsequent preference and treatment analyses were used to identify stimuli that would complete with the automatic function of pica for the 3 participants. These analyses also identified the specific aspect of oral stimulation that served as automatic reinforcement for 2 of the participants. In addition, functional analysis-based treatments were used to address the socially motivated components of 2 of the participants' pica. Results are discussed in terms of (a) the importance of using the results of functional analyses to develop treatments for pica and (b) the advantages of developing indirect analyses to identify specific sources of reinforcement for automatically reinforced behavior.

Analog baselines: a critical review of the methodology

Analog baselines are an experimental methodology for identifying the functions of maladaptive behavior in the naturally occurring environment (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982; Iwata et al., 1994). This article identifies a number of potential limitations in this methodology. These include: (a) procedural problems inherent in the use of multielement designs, (b) the fidelity of analog baseline design conditions, (c) the relation of the analog conditions to the naturally occurring environment, (d) a narrow analysis of behavior limited by an implicit adherence to an ABC model of behavior, (e) a limited acknowledgement of multifunction and idiosyncratically motivated behaviors, (f) problems in the definition of response classes, and (g) difficulties in the use of analog baselines to design interventions. Future research should attend to three main questions. First, the convergent validity of different assessment methodologies, including analog baselines, should be evaluated. Future research should attend to procedures that can integrate the entire clinical process of referral, identifying the functions of the target behavior, including other methods of identifying the functions of behavior, treatment design, and implementation. Second, assessment failures could be examined carefully to identify ways of developing this methodology further. Third, the process of designing an intervention depends upon input from many sources of information. The use of analog baselines will be enhanced by a greater understanding of the process of clinical decision making.