Effects of Fixed Versus Random Condition Sequencing During Multielement Functional Analyses

Abstract

It has been suggested that a fixed condition sequence might facilitate differential responding during multielement functional analyses (FAs) by capitalizing on or limiting sequence effects (Iwata, Pace, et al., 1994); however, the effects of condition sequence have not been examined empirically. We conducted fixed- and random-sequence FAs for 7 individuals with developmental disabilities to determine the relative effects that sequence may have on assessment outcomes. Experimental conditions during the fixed sequence were conducted in the following order: ignore, attention, play, and demand; condition order during the random sequence was determined randomly. Results showed that sequence had no influence on the FA outcomes for 3 subjects, whereas differential responding emerged either faster (1 subject) or only (3 subjects) under the fixed sequence for the remaining subjects. These results suggest that the fixed sequence, a simple modification, should be used when conducting multielement FAs to accommodate the influence of establishing operations across assessment conditions.

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

“…Functional Analysis. We first conducted a functional analysis of each participant's destructive behavior using procedures similar to those described by Iwata et al (1982Iwata et al ( /1994, which incorporated (a) screening procedures for automatic reinforcement described by Querim et al (2013); (b) the fixed sequence of multielement conditions described by Hammond et al (2013); (c) reinforcer-duration modifications described by Fisher, Piazza and Chiang (1996); and (d) condition-specific colored clothing worn by the therapists described by Conners et al (2000). We selected items for the tangible and attention conditions of the functional analysis based on the results of a paired-stimulus preference assessment (Fisher et al, 1992), informed by caregiver report (Fisher, Piazza, Bowman & Amari, 1996).…”

Examining the influence of social‐environmental variables on self‐injurious behaviour in adolescent boys with fragile X syndrome

“…It is possible, therefore, that the fixed sequence of condition presentation may not have been optimal. We employed the fixed sequence in order to maximise the motivating operations for problem behaviour (Hammond et al 2013) and attempted to minimise carryover effects by allowing breaks between sessions and waiting until problem behaviour had ceased before beginning the next session. The fact that problem behaviour rarely occurred in the play condition, even though this condition was always conducted between the transition escape and ignore conditions indicates that participants were sensitive to the environmental manipulations.…”

“…The seven conditions were conducted in the same sequence: ignore , attention , tangible , social escape , demand escape , transition escape and play in order to maximise the motivating operations for SIB across conditions (Hammond et al . ), and each participant was repeatedly exposed to the sequence of conditions 6 to 7 times. Each session lasted for 5 min in duration to minimise fatigue effects.…”

“…An ignore condition was included instead of an alone condition because the majority of boys with FXS were unable to tolerate being in the room on their own and would spend the session attempting to leave the room unless an adult was present. The seven conditions were conducted in the same sequence: ignore, attention, tangible, social escape, demand escape, transition escape and play in order to maximise the motivating operations for SIB across conditions (Hammond et al 2013), and each participant was repeatedly exposed to the sequence of conditions 6 to 7 times. Each session lasted for 5 min in duration to minimise fatigue effects.…”

Assessing the impact of psychotropic medication changes on challenging behavior of individuals with intellectual disabilities

“…The FA conditions were presented in a randomized fashion using a multielement design. Recent research has demonstrated that when the conditions of an FA are presented in a fixed order within a multi-element design, the results are more valid (Hammond, Iwata, Rooker, Fritz, & Bloom, 2013). Had we used a fixed order of presentation (i.e., ignore, attention, control, then escape), the opportunity to capitalize upon establishing operations to motivate behavior within the test conditions may have had the potential to reduce sequence effects.…”