Applied Behavior Analysis

Front 1

Hanley (2013)
What is Hanley’s central recommendation regarding functional analysis? Specifically, what does he propose a functional analysis should look like?

Back 1

Start with a structured and open-ended interview followed by a brief observation to discover potential variables that influence problem behavior. Then conduct a precise and individualized functional analysis based on the information gathered to examine the relevance of those factors to problem behavior with experimental manipulations and control.

Front 2

Hanley paper
What are some of the objections to functional analysis that are based on largely on issues of practicality/social validity? Rebut each of those problems with a potential solution, as noted in the article.

Back 2

FAs take too much time: Iwata and Wallace (1999) demonstrated that 5- and 10- min sessions are as valid as longer sessions with high correspondence to results found from 15- min sessions.
FAs are too complex: Implementing procedures and interpreting data for experimental control is possible with training in behavior analysis and visual inspection.
FAs are too risky for the patient or the person conducting the analysis: it is riskier to not find effective treatment using an FA and figuring out what the putative reinforcers are to implement them effectively to avoid higher rates of problem behavior.
FAs are difficult to “sell” to constituents: Build a therapeutic relationship during the interview and observation process; describe the practical and humane reasons for understanding the function prior to treating problem behavior; describe how reinforcement-based treatments are more likely effective after a proper functional analysis; use analogies to explain why you are doing this FA

Front 3

Hanley paper
What are some of the objections to functional analysis that are based on concerns about behavior (danger, measurement, etc?). Note some of Hanley’s suggestions on working around those perceived constraints.

Back 3

FAs cannot address dangerous, low-rate, covert, or multiple topographies/functioned problem behavior. Also, behaviors that are constantly influenced by changing reinforcers are inappropriate for FA. Hanley suggests considerations including the assessment context, proper scheduling of putative reinforcers for problem behavior, simple conditions with short sessions, and using precursor behavior as target behavior to mitigate risk from dangerous behaviors.
Providing opportunities for covert behavior or measuring a reinforcer for an alternative behavior can provide enough information to begin testing covert problem behavior, but a small inferential leap is necessary to determine the function of behavior. Systematic arrangement of extinction for topographies of behavior can show which are maintained by the same reinforcer. Analysts can use specific contingency to compare test and control conditions after high levels of responding in different conditions with different reinforcers.

Front 4

Hanley paper
What are some potential solutions to undifferentiated analyses?

Back 4

Conduct open ended interview and brief observation to discover ecologically valid and controlling variables→ info contributes to designing the FA
Alternate a single test condition with an intimately matched control condition in which only the contingency between problem Bx and the putative reinforcer is removed
Select only topographically similar behavior that can be safely exhibited as the target of the analysis
Assign very salient discriminative stimuli to test and control conditions
Schedule consequences to occur immediately following each target behavior
Make more idiosyncratic test conditions
Use a different design- multielement to pairwise or reversal
Make sure EO is strong

Front 5

Bowman paper
How did the authors describe (in the introduction) the potential relationship between mands and problem behavior for the children in this study? What, precisely, is the presumed reinforcer?

Back 5

The potential relationship with mands and problem behavior is that problem behavior increases the probability that a child’s requests (mand) would be honored. The presumed reinforcer is compliance with the child’s mands/destructive behavior.

Front 6

Bowman paper
Describe the antecedents and consequences arranged during the test and control conditions of the mand analysis (including the pre-session conditions).

Back 6

A multielement design with two conditions (one test, one control) was arranged so that compliance was the contingent consequence. Before both conditions, the therapist asked the child for a mand and complied with all mands for 2 min until the session began. Then in the test condition, the therapist complied with all the child’s mands contingent upon destructive behavior; mands alone were on extinction. In the control condition, the therapist complied with all mands only on an FR1 schedule and issued brief reminders of compliance; destructive behavior was on extinction.

Front 7

Kahng paper (2001)
How did the authors adapt the functional analysis to assess low-rate behavior?

Back 7

The authors extended the period of observation in which a problem behavior could occur. Iwata’s functional analysis set up 10 min observations sessions (1982/1994), but the authors in this study extended the observation period to 7 hr across the day, from 9am to 4pm, Monday to Friday using paper and pencil methods and direct care staff. This adaptation was successful in gathering data that yielded attention as the function for problem behavior and informed subsequent treatment.

Front 8

Thomason-Sassi (2011)
Define response latency. What is the benefit of using a latency measure when conducting a functional analysis? For what type of behaviors would a latency-based functional analysis be most useful?

Back 8

Response latency is the dimension of time from the onset of a stimulus to the first response. Using a response latency measure greatly reduces the number of responses that must be observed to assess changes in behavior. Latency-based functional analysis would be most useful for behaviors that are high risk, dangerous, undesirable, or impractical to arrange for the participants.

Front 9

Thomason-Sassi et al.
What was a potential limitation of Study 2 and how did Study 3 overcome this limitation? Describe the general findings obtained in Study 3.

Back 9

Experiment 1 was conducted to demonstrate the correlation between response rate and latency, with results that were replicated and suggest latency can reflect changes in Bx and used as a measure in an FA.
Experiment 2 was conducted to show data from previous functional analyses graphs measuring response latency instead of rates. These graphs provided no information on how response latency changed in responding across a 10- or 15- min session. This makes it difficult to determine whether a functional analysis based on a measure from a single point of exposure would reveal the same conclusion as data from multiple exposures with a learning history in a session from a standard functional analysis. Study 3 compared the results of latency FA to a standard FA results to compare how continued exposure affects the FA results.

Front 10

Roscoe et al
Describe the demand assessment (the antecedents and consequences in effect for both compliance and problem behavior). What were high-p and low-p demands?

Back 10

During 5 min sessions, the therapist delivered three-step prompting (V→M→P) to complete the demand tasks presented in multi element design. If the participant engaged in target behavior, the therapist removed the task for 30s. If the participant complied, the therapist delivered brief praise and represented the task again. Demands associated with high levels of compliance and low levels of problem behavior were high-p demands; demands associated with high levels of problem behavior and low levels of compliance were low-p demands.

Front 11

Roscoe et al.
How did the authors evaluate the utility of the demand assessment? What was the outcome of that evaluation?

Back 11

It can be valuable conduct a demand assessment before conducting a functional analysis to identify appropriate negative reinforcers (this assessment found low p demands with high prob. Bx and high-p demands with low prob. Bx found across 3 out of 4 participants) at the outset. The demand assessment may also be useful when little or no responding occurs during the demand condition in a functional analysis because the motivational operations are not present. The demand assessment revealed how none of the high or low p demands could be characterized consistently as one type (motor, academic, verbal) across all participants, so the demand assessment can reveal the idiosyncratic demands that are negatively reinforcing for each participant in each context.

Front 12

Bloom et al. (2013)
According to the authors, what are the differences between an Iwata (“traditional”) FA and a trial-based FA?

Back 12

A standard FA is usually based on condition phases, unlike a trial based FA, which is made up of trial sessions. A standard FA includes a series of test conditions that are alternated with a control condition, but a trial based FA has no generic control condition. Instead each session has segments within each trial that are designated as test and control based on the motivating operations present or absent. A standard FA has sessions conducted in a controlled environment one after another, but a trial based FA has trials embedded in the context of ongoing activities and as opportunities arise. Trial FA has an average measurement of responding across trials, but standard FA has rate of change of Bx over time session by session.

Front 13

Iwata et al., 1982/1994
Describe each of the four experimental conditions in terms of its purpose, scheduled antecedent events, and scheduled consequent events.

Back 13

Social disapproval – to test attention as SR+ maintaining Bx- subjects in a room with toys and instructed to play while a tester appeared to work (attention deprivation)- Sd therapist 1 in setting 1- Bx result in Sr+ attention
Academic demand – to test whether escape from academic demands served as negative reinforcement for SIB- Sd therapist 2 setting 2- subjects were presented with demands and upon completion they were socially praised or corrected- Bx result in termination of work demand for 30 sec (Sr- escape).
Alone- to test if Bx self-maintained- impoverished conditions without potentially stimulating materials- no play materials, academic demands, attention, experimenter present- no consequence programmed
Play/Control for all conditions- no EO, enriched environment with materials, NC R+, no demands. Bx had no consequent programming

Front 14

Northup et al.
Describe the contingency reversal, in terms of its purpose and the contingencies arranged.

Back 14

The FA assessment differed in that it included three subsequent, additional conditions included were referred to as a contingency reversal, in which consequence that produced the highest percentage of problem behavior was again presented contingent upon that occurrence of an appropriate behavior rather than problem behavior. The problem behavior was then on extinction. This was done to show the equivalence of a contingency across problem and alternative behavior. This also showed control of behavior based on the contingent reinforcement. After a condition of contingency reversal, a control condition followed with either the original contingency or the alone condition.

Front 15

Vollmer et al. 1995
Describe the 4 phases of the FA model proposed by Vollmer et al. (1995). Also, note the conditions under which participants moved on to each subsequent phase.

Back 15

Phase 1- brief, and if did not produce differentiated responding due to limited exposure/failure to discriminate, it led to Phase 2 in multi-element design. As soon as phases produced differentiated responding, experimenters could move to determining treatment. If Phase 2 produce inconclusive or non-differentiated (due to carryover or multiple treatment interference) responding,Phase 3 is designed as an extension with no interaction (alone) of the multi element format. If Bx continues, it is self maintained. If Bx underwent extinction, Phase 4 with a reversal of socially maintained reinforcement conditions was implemented to demonstrate differentiated results with experimental control.

Front 16

Hanley et al. (2003)
How was the term “functional analysis” used by Skinner (1953)?

Back 16

Skinner used the term to describe an empirical demonstration of “cause and effect” between environmental conditions and behavior.

Front 17

Hanley et al.
Be able to generate a list of two variations in antecedent events and two variations in consequent events for each of the following (a) social positive Sr, (b) social negative Sr, and (c) automatic Sr

Back 17

a) social positive reinforcement- pre-session deprivation of attention, divided attention, or holding a reinforcement contingency constant while manipulating the antecedent variable present of interest
b) social negative reinforcement- changing task/demand novelty, changing session duration, changing rate of task presentation to be escaped
c) automatic reinforcement-introducing competing items for stimulation, change in antecedent location that change self-stimulation reinforcement for behavior

Front 18

Hanley et al.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of using an intermittent reinforcement schedule rather than a continuous schedule during an FA?

Back 18

Advantages- it's easier, it more closely resembles natural environments
Disadvantages- behavior undergoes extinction

Front 19

Hanley et al.
Compare the AB and ABC models, noting their advantages and/or disadvantages.

Back 19

AB manipulates only antecedents; ABC manipulates both antecedents and consequences
AB you can only test EO but not the reinforcing consequency. In AB, you’re operating under extinction, which could lead to a bx crash or spike. AB may be more socially valid because it doesn’t reinforce problem behavior.
An AB analysis can only find an inferred correlation between the environmental setup and behavior. The antecedent-behavior-consequence model t can more fully assess the function of a behavior. ABC requires a consequence manipulation to change/analyze behavior, and this analysis is not any less efficient or risky while producing more precise information about behavior relations.

Front 20

Wallace & Iwata (1999)
To what extent were interpretations based on 10- and 5-min data sets consistent with those based on the 15-min data sets? Based on the results of this study, what was the authors’ recommendation regarding optimal session duration when conducting typical functional analyses?

Back 20

The 10min and 15min sessions had perfect agreement for determining the function of problem behavior across all conditions. However, the data sets for the 5 min sessions was inconsistent with the findings of the 10 and 15 min session results across 3 out of 5 conditions (including tangible, escape, and automatic), which suggest that the difference in session time can produce incongruous results for a functional analysis conducted under the same procedure. Optimal session duration for conducting typical functional analysis includes multiple condition exposure that should demonstrate control over behavior changes.

Front 21

Chapman et al. and Grace et al.
What is covert behavior and why is it more challenging to treat than overt behavior?

Back 21

Covert behavior is responses that occur without any observation. Because covert behavior occurs privately, it can be more difficult to observe and measure quantitatively and apply differential consequences.

Front 22

Chapman et al (1993).
How did the authors identify putative reinforcers to test during the functional analysis, and how were those putative reinforcers assessed?

Back 22

Three putative operants were generated from chart records of antecedents and consequences relevant to pill ingestion. The three putative reinforcers were found to occur in over 75% of occurrences. The functional analysis tested the reinforcing quality of each operant by assigning different colored pills to each operant condition.

Front 23

Grace et al. (1996)
Describe how the authors identified and assessed putative reinforcers for SIB. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this approach?

Back 23

The strength of the reinforcer assessments was that it did not involve risk for serious SIB because it made the reinforcers contingent on an alternative behavior and not covert SIB. This allowed researchers to ensure a quantitative amount of an alternative behavior would occur for the putative reinforcer. A weakness of this approach is that it does not identify the specific reinforcing qualities of the reinforcers on SIB, a particular operant class. Rather, the reinforcer assessment only determined that the putative reinforcers are generally reinforcing with another operant class.

Front 24

Grace et al. (1996)
In the current study, SIB was measured via a response product measurement system. Note any potential limitations or considerations when using this type of measurement system.

Back 24

A potential limitation of this measurement system is that it is a cumulative record that may not always show if SIB occurred multiple times in one area of the body that had already sustained an injury. One consideration would be to note changes to older injuries to ensure they are healing and not subject to continued injurious behavior. Also, not all SIB may produce external permanent product damage that could be recorded on the body diagrams, nor not all damages recorded on body diagrams were produced by SIB.

Front 25

Baker et al. (2006): What was the purpose of the setting analysis? What did the results show?

Back 25

The purpose of the setting analysis was to determine whether the functional analysis of aggression needed to be conducted specifically bathroom setting or in a setting by with staff presence nearby. Results showed that behavior was differentially higher in the hygiene routine with staff presence than with the recreation time with staff presence. This shows that problem behavior was maintained by the hygiene routine demands placed in the bathroom setting.

Front 26

Larsen et al. (2013)
How does this study represent an extension of prior research on physical exercise?

Back 26

The purpose of the current study was to conduct a functional analysis to investigate the effects of several consequent variables on moderate-to-physical activity. This extends prior research on physical activity because it finds a functional relationship for the variables, which before were only identified by descriptive assessment and were not always identified conclusively.

Front 27

Larsen et a. (2013)
What conditions were included in the functional analysis? What consequences were associated with each condition?

Back 27

Baseline- no demands or consequences programmed; children observed during normal playtimes with other children, fixed playground equipment, and toys present
Interactive play- children were told that if and only if they were to “run, jump, or climb,” then an adult would play with them in a similar manner
Attention- children were told that if and only if they were to “run, jump, or climb,” then an adult would give them verbal praise for their MVTA
Escape- the child was given worksheets with prompts every 10 s to complete works; the child was told that they could engage in MVTA “run, jump, or climb” if they were tired of work, MVTA terminated work for 30 s.
Alone- the child was told that an adult needed to do work and was left alone to play in the playground with no consequences; child was observed from afar without receiving attention
Control- social variables available during playtimes were present- for coloring child was given attention/interaction (non contingent on MVTA)

Front 28

Jin et al. (2013) sleep study
Why do the authors focus on developing behavioral quietude and not just sleep itself?

Back 28

Behavioral quietude is a measureable dimension that always precedes the target behavior of falling asleep. Interference with behavioral quietude is also an interference to sleep, so this is worth studying to know what else is competing with sleep as reinforcement. Behavioral quietude is easier to measure and a behavior that can be approximated throughout treatment, unlike sleep which is a terminal R+ point in itself.

Front 29

Jin et al. (2013): The authors noted that each treatment included establishing operation manipulations to reduce sleep-onset delay, interventions to reduce sleep-interfering behaviors, and manipulations to interrupt inappropriate sleep dependencies. If provided with examples of treatment components (e.g., faded bedtime), be able to note whether it is an example of an EO manipulation for sleep onset, an intervention to reduce sleep-interfering behaviors, or an intervention to correct sleep dependencies.

Back 29

For Walter, parents were instructed to provide access to competing items 20 min before bed -> EO manipulation to reduce sleep onset delay
For Andy, parents were instructed to allow Andy to engage in stereotypy --> EO manipulation
Going in to block stereotypy--> intervention to reduce sleep interfering behavior
For Lou, leisure items were removed with a room cleanup before bidding goodnight--> intervention to reduce sleep interfering behaviors
For Lou, given a choice board to select more relaxed activities for an easier transition to behavioral quietude at the end of his bedtime routine- inserting a sound machine instead of leaving music - manipulations to interrupt sleep dependencies

Front 30

Rodriguez study on noncompliance
How was experimental control demonstrated in this study?

Back 30

Two test conditions were used to represent positive and negative reinforcement, attention and escape, in a contingency reversal strategy. These conditions were rapidly alternated in a multielement design and therefore used as control conditions for the other to demonstrate differential noncompliance across phases as control.