Individualization and iterative design are essential components of the assessment and treatment of challenging behavior. Currently, there are few validated frameworks for engaging in iterative processes. Due to the nature of single-case design, empirically rigorous evaluations of decision-tree processes are particularly prohibitive. Notwithstanding, evaluations are needed. In this paper we first describe a function-informed and mechanisms-based (FIMB) framework for selecting treatment components employed by a university-based practicum experience designed to expose pre-service practitioners to a valid treatment process for challenging behavior. Then, we share a completed retrospective consecutive case series across a 6-year period in which we conducted a technique analysis to identify which procedures were most commonly selected in the practicum, and the impact of those choices on client outcomes. The results suggest that the model can be highly effective for some, but not all, cases. Implications are discussed.

Latency-based functional analysis (FA) may be a viable alternative to the standard, rate-based, FA when frequently evoking problem behavior is not advisable. We conducted 18 latency-based FAs of the problem behavior of children diagnosed with autism in inpatient hospital settings and identified functional relations during 44.4% (8 of 18) of latency-based FAs. Implications for conducting FAs of severe problem behavior are discussed.

In elementary school classrooms, students commonly recruit teacher attention at inappropriately high rates or at inappropriate times. Multiple schedule interventions have been used to teach stimulus control by signaling to students when reinforcement is and is not available contingent on an appropriate response. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of a class-wide multiple schedule on differentiated rates of student recruitment of teacher attention in two public elementary classrooms. General education teachers implemented the multiple schedule intervention in the context of a common instructional routine (i.e., small group rotations among reading centers). Results indicated that the multiple schedule intervention was effective at decreasing disruptive bids for attention when teacher attention was not available. Additional research on teacher implementation of class-wide multiple schedules is needed to evaluate whether this intervention may be identified as an effective supplement to Tier 1 classroom management strategies within multitiered systems of support.

The prevalence of psychotropic medication use among students with emotional and behavioral challenges continues to increase as intensive behavioral interventions are designed and evaluated in schools. There is general consensus among clinical professionals that psychotropic medications are not “silver bullets” but should be expected to improve mental health outcomes and enhance the effects of academic and behavioral interventions. Thus, they should be used to supplement, not replace, classroom-based strategies. Unfortunately, effective collaboration between clinical and educational professionals to evaluate medication effects is rare. As a result, psychopharmacological and behavioral interventions often occur simultaneously but are implemented and monitored independently by separate teams of professionals. In the present article, we make a case that a better understanding of behavioral mechanisms of psychotropic drug effects has the potential to improve the integration and evaluation of psychotropic and intensive behavioral interventions for students with emotional and behavioral challenges in schools. First, we review behavior-analytic approaches to intensive intervention models and current use patterns in psychotropic medications for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Second, we review potential behavioral mechanisms of drug action as a framework for integrating the two treatment models. Third, we discuss implications of this integrated framework for practitioners when implementing and evaluating intensive, integrated interventions in schools.

No abstract