Outcome summaries of latency-based functional analyses conducted in hospital inpatient units

Abstract

Latency-based functional analysis (FA) may be a viable alternative to the standard, rate-based, FA when frequently evoking problem behavior is not advisable. We conducted 18 latency-based FAs of the problem behavior of children diagnosed with autism in inpatient hospital settings and identified functional relations during 44.4% (8 of 18) of latency-based FAs. Implications for conducting FAs of severe problem behavior are discussed.

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

“…Therefore, the acceptability of the assessment process, treatments, or outcomes was not determined. Furthermore, multiple formats exist for conducting standard analyses prior to treatment, such as the brief (Northup et al, 1991), trial-based (Austin, Groves, Reynish, & Francis, 2015;Sigafoos & Saggers, 1995), or latency-based (Lambert et al, 2017;Thomason-Sassi, Iwata, Neidert, & Roscoe, 2011) formats. The treatment utility of these slight variations to the standard functional analysis format (Iwata et al1982(Iwata et al /1994) has yet to be evaluated in similar large-scale outcome studies.…”

Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA): Novel Interpretations and Future Directions

“…Furthermore, 55 treatment evaluations informed by the IISCA were conducted in 14 of these studies. Six of 17 studies (Fisher, Greer, Romani, Zangrillo, & Owen, 2016;Herman, Healy, & Lydon, 2018;Lambert et al, 2017;Strand & Eldevik, 2017;Strohmeier, Murphy, & O'Connor, 2016;Taylor, Phillips, & Gertzog, 2018) were not affiliated with the original author's (Hanley et al, 2014) research laboratory and did not have previous experience under Dr. Hanley's mentorship. In addition, we identified studies conducted across four geographical locations (i.e., North America, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand).…”

Nature and scope of synthesis in functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior

“…Most synthesized FAs evaluated multiple response topographies; 81% did so by reinforcing dissimilar responses (e.g., aggression and SIB), and 17% did so by reinforcing similar responses within the same general category (e.g., aggression in the form of hitting and kicking). There were three applications (2%) that evaluated a single topography only (crying in Bowman, Hardesty, & Mendres‐Smith, ; self‐biting for participant Rudolfo in Kennedy & Meyer, ; mouthing in Lohrmann‐O'Rourke & Yurman, ), and three applications in which authors did not specify whether multiple topographies were reinforced (Lambert et al, ; O'Reilly et al, 2000). In approximately half of applications (49%), it appears that the topographies reinforced in the FA were selected because they were the specific behaviors for which the individual was referred (i.e., the authors provided no additional information regarding interviews, observation, or other methods that were used to cull response topographies for analysis).…”

“…A high percentage of all synthesized FAs were differentiated (139 out of 148; 94%). There were six SCA applications that were undifferentiated (participant Sylvia in Fisher et al, ; participants Jim and Daniel in Roscoe, Schlichenmeyer et al, 2015; participant Gail [with analyst] in Hanley et al, ; Participant 2 in Lambert et al, ). For Sylvia, Jim, and Daniel, an isolated FA was also undifferentiated; the isolated FA occurred after the SCA for Sylvia and before the SCA for Jim and Dave.…”

“…For example, when providing escape and tangible items contingent on problem behavior in an FA test condition, it is unclear whether problem behavior is maintained by each of these reinforcers separately (i.e., multiple control), by only one of the reinforcers (e.g., escape but not tangibles), or by the interaction between the reinforcers (i.e., escape to tangibles, and not escape or tangibles in isolation). Despite these potential challenges to interpretation posed by FAs that involve the simultaneous delivery of multiple reinforcers, a number of examples in which multiple reinforcers have been purposely arranged in a test condition have been reported since the review by Beavers et al (i.e., Call & Lomas Mevers, ; Fisher, Greer, Romani, Zangrillo, & Owen, ; Ghaemmaghami, Hanley, & Jessel, ; Ghaemmaghami, Hanley, Jin, & Vanselow, ; Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, & Hanratty, ; Jessel, Hanley, & Ghaemmaghami, ; Jessel, Ingvarsson, Metras, Kirk, & Whipple, ; Lambert et al, ; Lloyd et al, ; Payne, Dozier, Neidert, Jowett, & Newquist, ; Santiago, Hanley, Moore, & Jin, ; Slaton, Hanley, & Raftery, ; Strohmeier, Murphy, & O'Connor, ). Moreover, the literature on FAs that include combined reinforcement contingencies has presented corresponding data on treatment effectiveness, such that interventions based on these types of FAs have also been reported (e.g., Ghaemmaghami et al, ; Ghaemmaghami et al, ; Hanley et al, ; Jessel et al, ; Mann & Mueller, ; Payne et al, ; Santiago et al, ; Sarno et al, ; Slaton et al, ; Strand & Eldevik, ; Strohmeier et al, ).…”