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.

The purpose of the current investigation was to apply the functional analysis described by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994) to the inappropriate mealtime behaviors of 15 children who had been referred to an intensive program for the assessment and treatment of severe feeding disorders. During Study 1, we conducted descriptive assessments of children and parents during meals. The results of Study 1 showed that parents used the following consequences for inappropriate mealtime behaviors: coaxing and reprimanding, allowing the child to periodically take a break from or avoid eating, and giving the child preferred food or toys following inappropriate behavior. The effects of these consequences were tested systematically in Study 2 when we conducted analogue functional analyses with the children. During alternating meals, one of the consequences typically used by parents consistently followed inappropriate child behavior. Results indicated that these consequences actually worsened behavior for 10 of the 15 children (67%). These results suggested that the analogue functional analysis described by Iwata et al. may be useful in identifying the environmental events that play a role in feeding disorders. DESCRIPTORS: descriptive assessment, feeding disorders, functional analysis, negative reinforcement A feeding disorder is identified when a child is unable or refuses to eat or drink suf-

The development of functional analysis (FA) methodologies allows the identification of the reinforcers that maintain problem behavior and improved intervention efficacy in the form of function-based treatments. Despite the profound impact of FA on clinical practice and research, questions still remain about the methods by which clinicians and researchers interpret FA graphs. In the current study, 141 FA data sets were evaluated using the structured visual-inspection criteria developed by Hagopian et al. (1997). However, the criteria were modified for FAs of varying lengths. Interobserver agreement assessments revealed high agreement coefficients across expert judges, postdoctoral reviewers, master's-level reviewers, and postbaccalaureate reviewers. Once the validity of the modified visual-inspection procedures was established, the utility of those procedures was examined by using them to categorize the maintaining reinforcement contingency related to problem behavior for all 141 data sets and for the 101 participants who contributed to the 141 data sets.

Functional communication training (FCT) and noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) are commonly prescribed treatments that are based on the results of a functional analysis. Both treatments involve delivery of the reinforcer that is responsible for the maintenance of destructive behavior. One major difference between the two treatment procedures is that client responding determines reinforcement delivery with FCT (e.g., reinforcement of communication is delivered on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule) but not with NCR (e.g., reinforcement is delivered on a fixed-time 30-s schedule). In the current investigation, FCT and NCR were equally effective in reducing 2 participants' destructive behavior that was sensitive to attention as reinforcement. After the treatment analysis, the participants' relative preference for each treatment was evaluated using a modified concurrentchains procedure. Both participants demonstrated a preference for the FCT procedure. The results are discussed in terms of treatment efficacy and preference for control over when reinforcement is delivered. In addition, a method is demonstrated in which clients with developmental disabilities can participate in selecting treatments that are designed to reduce their destructive behavior.