The development of effective training programs for persons with profound mental retardation remains one of the greatest challenges for behavior analysts working in the field of developmental disabilities. One significant advancement for this population has been the reinforcer assessment procedure developed by Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985), which involves repeatedly presenting a variety of stimuli to the client and then measuring approach behaviors to differentiate preferred from nonpreferred stimuli. One potential limitation of this procedure is that some clients consistently approach most or all of the stimuli on each presentation, making it difficult to differentiate among these stimuli. In this study, we used a concurrent operants paradigm to compare the Pace et al. (1985) procedure with a modified procedure wherein clients were presented with two stimuli simultaneously and were given access only to the first stimulus approached. The results revealed that this forced-choice stimulus preference assessment resulted in greater differentiation among stimuli and better predicted which stimuli would result in higher levels of responding when presented contingently in a concurrent operants paradigm.

Because behavior analysis is a data-driven process, a critical skill for behavior analysts is accurate visual inspection and interpretation of single-case data. Study 1 was a basic study in which we increased the accuracy of visual inspection methods for A-B designs through two refinements of the split-middle (SM) method called the dual-criteria (DC) and conservative dual-criteria (CDC) methods. The accuracy of these visual inspection methods was compared with one another and with two statistical methods (Allison & Gorman, 1993;Gottman, 1981) using a computer-simulated Monte Carlo study. Results indicated that the DC and CDC methods controlled Type I error rates much better than the SM method and had considerably higher power (to detect real treatment effects) than the two statistical methods. In Study 2, brief verbal and written instructions with modeling were used to train 5 staff members to use the DC method, and in Study 3, these training methods were incorporated into a slide presentation and were used to rapidly (i.e., 15 min) train a large group of individuals (N ϭ 87). Interpretation accuracy increased from a baseline mean of 55% to a treatment mean of 94% in Study 2 and from a baseline mean of 71% to a treatment mean of 95% in Study 3. Thus, Study 1 answered basic questions about the accuracy of several methods of interpreting A-B designs; Study 2 showed how that information could be used to increase the accuracy of human visual inspectors; and Study 3 showed how the training procedures from Study 2 could be modified into a format that would facilitate rapid training of large groups of individuals to interpret single-case designs.DESCRIPTORS: assessment, behavior analysis, data analysis, interrater agreement, visual inspection One area of behavioral research that continues to be a critical component of applied behavior analysis is staff training

Functional communication training (FCT) is a frequently used treatment for reducing problem behavior exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities. Once the operant function of problem behavior is identified by a functional analysis, the client is taught to emit an appropriate communicative response to obtain the reinforcer that is responsible for behavioral maintenance. Studies on FCT have typically used small numbers of participants, have reported primarily on clients for whom FCT was successful, and have varied with respect to their use of other treatment components. The main purposes of the present study were to evaluate the efficacy of FCT for treating severe problem behavior in a relatively large sample of individuals with mental retardation (N = 21) and to determine the contribution of extinction and punishment components to FCT treatment packages. FCT with extinction was effective in reducing problem behavior for the majority of clients and resulted in at least a 90% reduction in problem behavior in nearly half the applications. However, when demand or delay-to-reinforcement fading was added to FCT with extinction, treatment efficacy was reduced in about one half of the applications. FCT with punishment (both with and without fading) resulted in at least a 90% reduction in problem behavior for every case in which it was applied.

Using functional analysis results to prescribe treatments is the preferred method for developing behavioral interventions. Little is known, however, about the reliability and validity of visual inspection for the interpretation of functional analysis data. The purpose of this investigation was to develop a set of structured criteria for visual inspection of multielement functional analyses that, when applied correctly, would increase interrater agreement and agreement with interpretations reached by expert consensus. In Study 1, 3 predoctoral interns interpreted functional analysis graphs, and interrater agreement was low (M ϭ .46). In Study 2, 64 functional analysis graphs were interpreted by a panel of experts, and then a set of structured criteria were developed that yielded interpretive results similar to those of the panel (exact agreement ϭ .94). In Study 3, the 3 predoctoral interns from Study 1 were trained to use the structured criteria, and the mean interrater agreement coefficient increased to .81. The results suggest that (a) the interpretation of functional analysis data may be less reliable than is generally assumed, (b) decision-making rules used by experts in the interpretation of functional analysis data can be operationalized, and (c) individuals can be trained to apply these rules accurately to increase interrater agreement. Potential uses of the criteria are discussed.

Functional communication training has been reported to be a promising treatment for severe behavior problems. In this study, functional communication training alone and combined with extinction and/or punishment was evaluated for 4 clients with severe retardation, behavior problems, and communication deficits. The participants were inpatients on a hospital unit for treatment of severe behavior disorders. They received individualized interventions based on functional assessment that included reinforcement of a communication response with the same function as their destructive behavior. Results showed that for some patients, functional communication training was not sufficient to produce clinically significant reductions in destructive behavior, and the combination of training plus punishment produced the largest and most consistent reductions.