Differential reinforcement is a common treatment for escape-maintained problem behavior in which compliance is reinforced on a fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedule with brief access to positive and/or negative reinforcement. Recent research suggests some individuals prefer to complete longer work requirements culminating in prolonged (i.e. accumulated) reinforcement periods relative to brief (i.e. distributed) periods, but prolonged work exposure may evoke problem behavior and prevent compliance from contacting reinforcement when treating escapemaintained problem behavior. We exposed 3 children with escape-maintained problem behavior to both distributed (FR 1 resulting in 30 s of reinforcement) and accumulated (FR 15 resulting in 7.5 min of reinforcement) arrangements to compare their efficacy in maintaining low levels of problem behavior. We then assessed participants' preferences for these conditions in a concurrent-chains arrangement. Accumulated-reinforcement arrangements did not occasion additional problem behavior, but rather resulted in consistently lower levels of problem behavior for 2 of 3 participants. Participants demonstrated idiosyncratic preferences.

Functional analyses are intended to identify the reinforcers maintaining problem behavior in order to inform clinicians' selection of interventions. Traditionally, these analyses have exposed problem behavior to multiple, isolated reinforcement contingencies and in doing so, have ruled in and ruled out potential sources of reinforcement. Recently, some functional analysis models have forgone testing individual reinforcement contingencies and instead exposed problem behavior to 2 or more reinforcers simultaneously in a single, synthesized reinforcement contingency. The current review applies assessment analytics to these approaches to consider their relative sensitivity, specificity, discriminant validity, and predictive validity to yield practice recommendations and to nominate areas of future research.

Functional Communication Training (FCT) involves arranging extinction for problem behavior and reinforcement for a more desirable, functionally equivalent, communicative response (FCR). Although effective under ideal arrangements, the introduction of delays to reinforcement following the FCR can result in increased problem behavior. Austin and Tiger (2015) showed that for individuals whose problem behavior was sensitive to multiple sources of reinforcement, providing access to alternative, functional reinforcers during delays mitigated this increase in problem behavior during delay fading. The current study replicated the procedures of Austin and Tiger with 2 individuals displaying multiply controlled problem behavior. Providing alternative functional reinforcers reduced problem behavior during 10-min delays for both participants without requiring delay fading.