We evaluated the utility of a brief (5-min) stimulus preference assessment for individuals with developmental disabilities. Participants had noncontingent (free) access to an array of stimuli and could interact with any of the stimuli at any time. Stimuli were never withdrawn or withheld from the participants during a 5-min session. In Experiment 1, the brief preference assessment was conducted for 10 participants to identify differentially preferred stimuli, and reinforcer assessments were conducted to test the reinforcing efficacy of those stimuli identified as highly preferred. In Experiment 2, a comparison was conducted between the brief preference assessment and a commonly used paired-stimulus preference assessment. Collectively, results demonstrated that the brief preference assessment identified stimuli that functioned as reinforcers for a simple operant response, identified preferred stimuli that were differentially effective as reinforcers compared to nonpreferred stimuli, was associated with fewer problem behaviors, and required less time to complete than a commonly used paired-stimulus preference assessment.

The role of experimental analyses in guiding treatment is well established. However, not all experimental analyses yield conclusive results. Outcomes may be inconclusive due to time limitations that preclude extended observation and detailed experimental manipulations, or may result from interactions across experimental conditions, multiple control, or other unknown factors. In this study, we describe an assessment sequence that moves through four phases beginning with relatively brief (1 to 2 hr) analyses and culminating in extended analyses that may control for experimental confounding effects (e.g., interaction effects). Data illustrating the model are presented for 20 individuals referred for severe behavior problems including self-injury, aggression, stereotypy, and tantrums. Analyses were considered to be complete only when clear and replicable response patterns emerged. Results showed that clear and replicable response patterns emerged for 85% of the participants.

In prior research, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) has been implemented at optimal treatment values: Problem behavior is never reinforced, and alternative behavior is always reinforced. However, in application, DRA is unlikely to be conducted optimally. In this study, following a functional analysis phase and a differential reinforcement at full implementation phase, we challenged initially positive treatment effects for 3 participants by implementing DRA at less than optimal parameters. For example, some occurrences of problem behavior were reinforced, and some occurrences of alternative behavior were not reinforced. Results suggested that when exposed to DRA at full implementation, participants showed a bias toward appropriate behavior in subsequent conditions during which “mistakes” (treatment challenges) were intentionally introduced. In addition, the negative effects of treatment challenges were quickly reversible, in comparison to the positive effects of DRA, which were not quickly reversible in the face of treatment challenges.

We extended research on the role of noncontingent positive reinforcement following a functional analysis of attention-maintained self-injurious behavior to self-injury maintained by negative reinforcement in 2 young males with developmental disabilities. During a pretreatment functional analysis, each participant's self-injury was shown to be differentially sensitive to escape from instructional activities as negative reinforcement. During noncontingent escape, escape from learning activities was provided on a fixed-time schedule that was not influenced by the participant's behavior. One participant was also exposed to differential negative reinforcement of other behavior. During this condition, escape from instructional activities was provided contingent on the omission of self-injury for prespecified intervals. Results showed that the provision of escape, even when noncontingent, resulted in significant reductions in self-injury. These results are particularly interesting in light of the experimental history of noncontingent reinforcement as a control rather than as a therapeutic procedure. Noncontingent escape is discussed as a form of extinction that may be less likely than other forms of extinction to produce severe side effects.

To evaluate the effects of environmental enrichment on stereotypic self‐injurious behavior (SIB), we conducted an assessment of preference for manipulating alternative stimuli rather than engaging in SIB. First, for each of 3 participants, a functional analysis of SIB was conducted in Phase 1. Participants were selected for Phase 2 if the functional analysis showed that SIB persisted in the absence of social consequences. In Phase 2, a preference assessment was conducted in which participants were observed manipulating preferred stimuli in a free‐operant format. A measure was taken of time spent manipulating each stimulus and time spent engaging in SIB. In Phase 3, environmental enrichment was evaluated using stimuli that were preferred over the target response, and alternative treatments were evaluated in the event of environmental enrichment failure. Results suggested that the free‐operant preference assessment (a) predicted the efficacy or inefficacy of an environmental enrichment procedure and (b) suggested possible treatment alternatives when environmental enrichment was ineffective. Collectively, the results may provide a basis for interpreting the idiosyncratic effects of environmental enrichment and a rationale for treatment selection when behavioral function is unknown.