Comparison of blocking strategies informed by precursor assessment to decrease pica

Abstract

Pica is dangerous behavior and often maintained by automatic reinforcement. We conducted a latency functional analysis (FA) using safe consumption items to verify that pica was maintained in part by automatic reinforcement and exclude participants for whom pica was likely maintained solely by attention. Next, we identified precursors to pica through a probability analysis and conducted a brief blocking assessment for participants' whose pica occurred in the alone and attention conditions of the FA. Finally, we compared blocking precursors with pica, touching an inedible item and the pica itself. Results showed that five of the six participants' pica was likely maintained by automatic reinforcement, and pica decreased during the brief blocking assessment for three of four participants. Results of the blocking comparison showed that blocking behaviors earlier in the response hierarchy was as effective as only blocking pica attempts for two participants and more effective for one participant.

Reliability and validity of using structured visual‐inspection criteria to interpret latency‐based functional analysis outcomes

“…Applying SVI rules for trends resulted in identifying an attention function across two short‐latency data points (out of four attention sessions) and failing to identify an automatic function when problem behavior occurred in only one of the three alone sessions in the second half of the FA (when applying the “Downward Trends” rule; see Appendix). It is worth noting that the authors who interpreted this dataset indicated that “pica also might have been maintained by social‐positive reinforcement (access to attention),” but that “we did not attempt to verify that pica was maintained by social‐positive reinforcement” (Rettig et al, 2019, pp. 202–203).…”

“… Examples of FAs that Meet the Criteria for Automatic Reinforcement (top and middle panels) and Multiple Control (bottom panel) Note . Figure recreated from Rettig et al, 2019 (top panel), Thomason‐Sassi et al, 2011 (middle panel), and Briggs et al, 2019 (bottom panel), with permission from the corresponding authors and the journal. Criterion lines (CLs) have been superimposed for the purpose of the current study.…”

“… Examples of FAs that Demonstrate the use of the Downward (attention condition; top panel) and Upward Trend Criteria (attention condition; bottom panel) Note . Figure recreated from Rettig et al, 2019 (top panel) and Thomason‐Sassi et al, 2011 (bottom panel), with permission from the corresponding authors and the journal. Criterion lines (CLs) have been superimposed for the purpose of the current study.…”

Latency measurement in functional analysis and treatment of behaviors targeted for reduction

“…The results of this review indicate that LFFAs can be used to identify behavior function across a variety of participants and target behaviors; however, perhaps the most important consideration related to the validity of any behavior assessment tool is the extent to which the results can be used to inform effective, function‐based interventions. Researchers have used LFFAs to inform a variety of effective interventions including Functional Communication Training (FCT; e.g., Davis et al., 2013), differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) interventions (e.g., Briggs et al., 2019), non‐contingent reinforcement interventions (NCR; Noel & Rubow, 2018), discrimination training (e.g., Simmons et al., 2019), and response blocking interventions (e.g., Rettig et al., 2019).…”