Comparisons of synthesized and individual reinforcement contingencies during functional analysis

Abstract

Researchers typically modify individual functional analysis (FA) conditions after results are inconclusive (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, and Hanratty (2014) introduced a marked departure from this practice, using an interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA). In the test condition, they delivered multiple contingencies simultaneously (e.g., attention and escape) after each occurrence of problem behavior; in the control condition, they delivered those same reinforcers noncontingently and continuously. In the current investigation, we compared the results of IISCA with a more traditional FA in which we evaluated each putative reinforcer individually. Four of 5 participants displayed destructive behavior that was sensitive to the individual contingencies evaluated in the traditional FA. By contrast, none of the participants showed a response pattern consistent with the assumption of the IISCA. We discuss the implications of these findings on the development of accurate and efficient functional analyses.

Resurgence following differential reinforcement of alternative behavior implemented with and without extinction

“…If with additional study this finding is confirmed, such a result would conform to the predictions of both BMT and RaC. According to BMT, this effect may happen as a result of severing the response-reinforcer relation maintaining target behavior and altering generalization decrement (Nevin et al, 2001;Greer, Fisher, Romani et al, 2016). According to RaC, DRA treatments that arrange extinction for target behavior lessen the relative value of that response in relation to the value of the alternative response, which is likely to affect resurgence (Greer & Shahan, 2019).…”

Achieving socially significant reductions in problem behavior following the interview‐informed synthesized contingency analysis: A summary of 25 outpatient applications

“…Efficiency is, in part, achieved during an IISCA by conducting a single test condition in which the suspected contingencies are emulated and synthesized, rather than multiple test conditions in which typical contingencies are evaluated in isolation. Synthesis reduces experimental precision, because the effects of individual contingencies (e.g., escape vs. tangible) are not isolated (Fisher et al, ; Hanley et al, ). Although ecological precision is clearly improved by more closely approximating the natural environment, it is unclear whether an analysis that capitalizes on possible interactive effects of multiple naturally occurring consequences improves or reduces treatment effectiveness.…”

Treatment of elopement following a latency‐based interview‐informed, synthesized contingency analysis

“…Although the IISCA format is a relatively recent development, multiple replications have been conducted, each resulting in similarly brief assessment periods (e.g., Ghaemmaghami, Hanley, Jin, & Vanselow, ; Jessel, Ingvarsson, Metras, Kirk, & Whipple, ; Santiago, Hanley, Moore, & Jin, ). In fact, two recent studies conducted single‐subject comparisons of the IISCA functional analysis format and the standard (Iwata et al, 1982/) format and found that the IISCA reliably required less time to conduct (Fisher, Greer, Romani, Zangrillo, & Owen, ; Slaton, Hanley, & Raftery, ). Therefore, a practitioner conducting a functional analysis of a discrete response such as elopement who (a) has limited time and resources or (b) would like to reduce the time the participant is exposed to contexts that evoke problem behavior and may want to consider the latency‐based IISCA.…”