Assessment and Treatment of Elopement: A Replication and Extension

Abstract

The current investigation replicated and extended the assessment and treatment methodology of elopement. The environmental variables that maintained elopement were identified in each case, and successful treatments were implemented for the 3 participants in settings that were similar to those in which elopement occurred.

Systematic Review of Functional Analysis and Treatment of Elopement (2000–2015)

“…Only 25% of subjects' elopement was maintained by escape from demands, and 10% was maintained by automatic reinforcement. Regardless of function, when a treatment was implemented, FCT was the most common intervention (Davis et al, 2013;Falcomata et al, 2010;Gibson et al, 2010;Lehardy et al, 2013;Perrin et al, 2008;Stevenson et al, 2015;Tarbox et al, 2003), followed by NCR (Kodak et al, 2004;Lang et al, 2010;Perrin et al, 2008;Tarbox et al, 2003) and DRO (Call et al, 2011). None of the articles in the current review reported interventions for elopement maintained by automatic reinforcement.…”

“…Further, FCT was always combined with another intervention, such as response blocking (Lehardy et al, 2013;Stevenson et al, 2015;Tarbox et al, 2003), extinction (Davis et al, 2013;Falcomata et al, 2010;Perrin et al, 2008), or response cost (Gibson et al, 2010). The next most commonly used intervention was NCR (Kodak et al, 2004;Lang et al, 2010;Perrin et al, 2008;Tarbox et al, 2003), which was also often combined with another intervention, such as response blocking (Lang et al, 2010), extinction (Lang et al, 2010), or timeout (Kodak et al, 2004;Tarbox et al, 2003), although in one case it was implemented in isolation (Perrin et al, 2008). Finally, DRO was the least frequently implemented and in only one study (Call et al, 2011) on a comparison of DRO alone versus in combination with response blocking.…”

“…The majority of studies (Call et al, 2011;Falcomata et al, 2010;Gibson et al, 2010;Kodak et al, 2004;Lang et al, 2010;Stevenson et al, 2015;Tarbox et al, 2003) used "retrieval procedures" in which the subject was returned to a specific area during or following reinforcer delivery (Table 2). One study (Lehardy et al, 2013) entailed the therapist repositioning to where the subject eloped and one (Perrin et al, 2008) used FT prompts for the subject to remain in or move to a specific location throughout the session.…”

“…The majority of subjects had diagnoses of Autism, followed by IDD only, IDD plus seizure disorder, Asperger's disorder, and other DD, which included Attention Deficit Disorder and WolfHirschhorn syndrome. Across the 12 studies, 27 FAs were conducted, the majority of which were conducted in either one classroom (Davis et al, 2013;Gibson, Pennington, Stenhoff, & Hopper, 2010;Lang et al, 2008;Lang et al, 2010;Neidert, Iwata, Dempsey, & Thomason-Sassi, 2013) or one clinic room (Lang et al, 2008;Lehardy, Lerman, Evans, O'Connor, & LeSage, 2013;Tarbox, Wallace, & Williams, 2003). Seven FAs used two adjoining spaces: either two clinic rooms (Call, Pabico, Findley, & Valentino, 2011;Lehardy et al, 2013) or one room divided into two (Perrin et al, 2008).…”

“…Two FAs were conducted outside: one at a kickball field (Stevenson, Ghezzi, & Valenton, 2015) and one in a subject's neighborhood (Kodak, Grow, & Northup, 2004). Finally, one each was conducted in a hallway (Falcomata, Roane, Feeney, & Stephenson, 2010) or in an enclosed public area (a mall; Tarbox et al, 2003).…”