Abstract
Researchers typically modify individual functional analysis (FA) conditions after results are inconclusive (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, and Hanratty (2014) introduced a marked departure from this practice, using an interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA). In the test condition, they delivered multiple contingencies simultaneously (e.g., attention and escape) after each occurrence of problem behavior; in the control condition, they delivered those same reinforcers noncontingently and continuously. In the current investigation, we compared the results of the IISCA with a more traditional FA in which we evaluated each putative reinforcer individually. Four of 5 participants displayed destructive behavior that was sensitive to the individual contingencies evaluated in the traditional FA. By contrast, none of the participants showed a response pattern consistent with the assumption of the IISCA. We discuss the implications of these findings on the development of accurate and efficient functional analyses.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 596-616 |
Number of pages | 21 |
Journal | Journal of applied behavior analysis |
Volume | 49 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Sep 1 2016 |
Keywords
- assessment of problem behavior
- false-positive outcome
- functional analysis
- independent effects
- interaction effects
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy
- Sociology and Political Science
- Applied Psychology