Data are summarized from 152 single-subject analyses of the reinforcing functions of self-injurious behavior (SIB). Individuals with developmental disabilities referred for assessment and/or treatment over an 11-year period were exposed to a series of conditions in which the effects of antecedent and consequent events on SIB were examined systematically by way ofmultielement, reversal, or combined designs. Shook, Keith Slifer, and G. Linden Thorn for the special panel concluded that, although much is known about SIB at the present time, thorough understanding and eventual reduction in the frequency of SIB will require continued research on all aspects of the disorder, induding prevalence, etiology, treatment, and prevention.In an attempt to define the general parameters of SIB as a clinical disorder, a number of investigators have conducted group surveys using methods roles they played in developing or maintaining the clinical environments that accommodated this research. Michael Dorsey is now at the South Bay

Three studies are presented in which environmental correlates of self-injurious behavior were systematically examined and later used as the basis for treatment. In Study 1, 7 developmentally disabled subjects were exposed to a series of conditions designed to identify factors that maintain self-injurious behavior: attention contingent on self-injurious behavior (positive reinforcement), escape from or avoidance of demands contingent on self-injurious behavior (negative reinforcement), alone (automatic reinforcement), and play (control). Results of a multielement design showed that each subject's self-injurious behavior occurred more frequently in the demand condition, suggesting that the behavior served an avoidance or escape function. Six of the 7 subjects participated in Study 2. During educational sessions, "escape extinction" was applied as treatment for their self-injurious behavior in a multiple baseline across subjects design. Results showed noticeable reduction or elimination of self-injurious behavior for each subject and an increase in compliance with instructions in all subjects for whom compliance data were taken. The 7th subject, whose self-injurious behavior during Study 1 occurred in response to medical demands (i.e., physical examinations), participated in Study 3. Treatment was comprised of extinction, as in Study 2, plus reinforcement for tolerance of the examination procedure, and was evaluated in a multiple baseline across settings design. Results showed that the treatment was successful in eliminating self-injurious behavior and that its effects transferred across eight new therapists and three physicians. General implications for the design, interpretation, and uses of assessment studies are discussed.DESCRIPTORS: avoidance behavior, escape behavior, extinction, functional analysis, negative reinforcement, self-injurious behavior.Results from a number of studies indicate that self-injurious behavior (SIB), a chronic and serious disorder occurring in approximately 10% of the developmentally disabled population, may be ac-

We examined methods for determining how extinction should be applied to different functions of self-injurious behavior (SIB). Assessment data indicated that the head banging of 3 children with developmental disabilities was maintained by different reinforcement contingencies: One subject's SIB was positively reinforced by attention from adults, the 2nd subject's SIB was negatively reinforced by escape from educational tasks, and the 3rd subject's SIB appeared to be automatically reinforced or "self-stimulatory" in nature. Three functional variations of extinction-EXT (attention), EXT (escape), and EXT (sensory)-were evaluated, and each subject was exposed to at least two of these variations in reversal or multiple baseline designs. Reductions in SIB were observed only when implementation of "extinction" involved the discontinuation of reinforcement previously shown to be responsible for maintaining the behavior. These results highlight important differences among treatment techniques based on the same behavioral principle (extinction) when applied to topographically similar but functionally dissimilar responses, and further illustrate the practical implications of a functional analysis of behavior disorders for designing, selecting, and classifying therapeutic interventions.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether three preschool children with autism or autistic-like behaviors would learn and generalize pretend play activities targeted at two different play levels-a developmentally appropriate (DA) level and an age appropriate (AA) level-differently. The children's readiness for the DA play level was assessed with the Developmental Play Assessment (DPA) instrument (Lifter, Edwards, Avery, Anderson, & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1968). We taught individual exemplars from the two different play levels one at a time, to each of the children, in a sequential treatments design. In contrast to the consistently acquired DA activities, the activities of the AA category apparently were more difficult, and in most cases, they were not acquired In addition, the children were less likely to generalize the AA skills to other activities or toys. The results are discussed in terms of (a) the importance of developmental considerations in selecting instructional objectives, and (b) the usefulness of directly teaching play activities to children with developmental disabilities.Play is regarded as the "work" of childhood, and accordingly serves several important functions in development. As children engage in play activities they leam about objects and events, leam language for talking about these objects and events, and develop a range of interactions with parents and peers (Garvey,

Three individuals with developmental disabilities were exposed to a series of assessment conditions to identify the source of reinforcement for their self-injurious behavior. In each case, self-injury occurred most often in instructional (demand) situations containing a brief time-out from the task contingent on self-injury, indicating that the behavior was an escape response (i.e., maintained by negative reinforcement). Treatment increases in the behavior above baseline levels (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982). These and similar analyses of SIB as escape or avoidance behavior have illustrated the importance of developing therapeutic procedures that specifically eliminate or attenuate the contingencies that promote and maintain such behavior.Two general approaches have been taken in the treatment of self-injurious escape. The first involves modification of antecedent stimuli that produce SIB; in effect, this represents removal of the behavior's establishing operation (see Michael, 1982, for further discussion of antecedent stimuli as establishing operations for escape). Carr et al. (1976) showed that demand cessation quickly terminated 205 1993,26,[205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212] NUMBER 2 (SUMMER 1993)