The purpose of the current investigation was to extend the literature on matched stimuli to three dissimilar forms of aberrant behavior (dangerous climbing and jumping, saliva manipulation, and hand mouthing). The results of functional analyses suggested that each behavior was automatically reinforced. Preference assessments were used to identify two classes of stimuli: items that matched the hypothesized sensory consequences of aberrant behavior (matched stimuli) and items that produced sensory consequences that were not similar to those produced by the aberrant behavior (unmatched stimuli). The effects of providing continuous and noncontingent access to either the most highly preferred matched or the most highly preferred unmatched stimuli were assessed relative to a condition in which no stimuli were available. Overall results suggested that providing access to items that matched the hypothesized sensory consequences of aberrant behavior may be more effective than simply selecting stimuli either arbitrarily or based on the results of preference assessments alone.

The analogue functional analysis described by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994) identifies broad classes of variables (e.g., positive reinforcement) that maintain destructive behavior (Fisher, Ninness, Piazza, & Owen-DeSchryver, 1996). However, it is likely that some types of stimuli may be more effective reinforcers than others. In the current investigation, we identified 2 participants whose destructive behavior was maintained by attention. We used concurrent schedules of reinforcement to evaluate how different types of attention affected both destructive and appropriate behavior. We showed that for 1 participant praise was not an effective reinforcer when verbal reprimands were available; however, praise was an effective reinforcer when verbal reprimands were unavailable. For the 2nd participant, we identified a type of attention that effectively competed with verbal reprimands as reinforcement. We then used the information obtained from the assessments to develop effective treatments to reduce destructive behavior and increase an alternative communicative response.DESCRIPTORS: functional analysis, attention, destructive behaviorThe validity of the functional analysis method for prescribing treatments for destructive behavior has been demonstrated in a number of investigations (Didden, Duker, & Korzilius, 1997;Repp, Felce, & Barton, 1988). The functional analysis method is useful as a prescriptive tool because it results in the identification of the reinforcers that maintain destructive behavior. The results of epidemiological studies indicate that social consequences maintain destructive behavior in about one third of the cases studied (Derby et al., 1992;. Once reinforcers are identified, they can be arranged in a variety of ways, such as providing those reinforcers for an alternative apThis investigation was supported in part by Grant MCJ249149-02 from the Maternal and Child Health Service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Requests for reprints should be addressed to Cathleen C. Piazza, Neurobehavioral Unit, Kennedy Krieger Institute, 707 N. Broadway, Baltimore, Maryland 21205.propriate behavior (differential reinforcement) or withholding reinforcers for destructive behavior (extinction). Differential reinforcement and extinction procedures can be developed most easily when the reinforcer is within the control of the therapist (i.e., social reinforcement).Attention is one form of social reinforcement that has been demonstrated to maintain destructive behavior. In the analogue functional analysis method described by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994), attention is delivered in the form of verbal reprimands and brief physical interaction following occurrences of destructive behavior. When the results of a functional analysis indicate that destructive behavior is sensitive to adult attention as reinforcement, extinction procedures can be developed in which the reinforcer (verbal reprimands and physical interaction) is withheld following occurrences ...

We used descriptive assessment information to generate hypotheses regarding the function of destructive behavior for 2 individuals who displayed near‐zero rates of problem behavior during an experimental functional analysis using methods similar to Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994). The descriptive data suggested that destructive behavior occurred primarily when caregivers issued requests to the participants that interfered with ongoing high‐probability (and presumably highly preferred) behaviors (i.e., a “don't” or a symmetrical “do” request). Subsequent experimental analyses showed that destructive behavior was maintained by contingent termination of “don't” and symmetrical “do” requests but not by termination of topographically similar “do” requests. These results suggested that destructive behavior may have been maintained by positive reinforcement (i.e., termination of the “don't” request allowed the individual to return to a highly preferred activity). Finally, a treatment (functional communication training plus extinction) developed on the basis of these analyses reduced destructive behavior to near‐zero levels.

The effects of reinforcement choice on task performance were examined with 6 individuals who had been diagnosed with severe to profound mental retardation. Five highly preferred items were identified for each participant via stimulus preference assessments. Participants then were exposed to choice and no-choice conditions that were alternated within reversal and multielement designs. During choice sessions, participants were permitted to select between two preferred stimuli contingent on responding. During nochoice sessions, the therapist delivered a single item contingent on responding. Preference for the stimuli was held constant across conditions by yoking the items delivered during no-choice sessions to those selected during the immediately preceding choice sessions. All participants exhibited similar rates of responding across choice and no-choice conditions. These findings indicate that for individuals with severe disabilities, access to choice may not improve task performance when highly preferred items are already incorporated into instructional programs.

Mechanical restraints are commonly used to reduce the risks associated with severe self-injurious behavior (SIB), but may result in movement restriction and adverse side effects (e.g., bone demineralization). Restraint fading may provide a method for decreasing SIB while increasing movement and reducing these side effects. In the current investigation, rigid arm sleeves and restraint fading (gradually reducing the rigidity of the sleeves) were used with 3 clients who engaged in hand-to-head SIB. Restraints and fading reduced the hand-to-head SIB of all clients. However, for 1 client, the addition of a water mist procedure further reduced SIB to near-zero levels. For a 2nd client, another form of SIB developed that was not prevented by the rigid sleeves. For a 3rd client, a topography of SIB that was not physically prevented by the rigid sleeves was also reduced when restraints and fading were introduced.