The Effects of Advance Notice on Problem Behavior Occasioned by Interruptions of an Ongoing Activity in a Young Girl with Autism

Abstract

The current study describes a trial-based functional analysis of problem behavior conducted in a home setting for a 7-year-old girl with autism. Problem behavior was occasioned by interruptions to an ongoing activity. Advance notice, in the form of a 2-min warning, and the sound of a timer were used to signal termination of a current activity and were effective at reducing problem behavior along with increasing compliance to the interruptive demands. A trial-based functional analysis, which are not common in the applied literature, was conducted in a home setting for young girl with autism, using antecedent and consequence modifications described by Hagopian, Bruzek, Bowman, and Jennett (2007), identified the variables that occasioned and maintained problem behavior were interruptions to an ongoing activity followed by regaining uninterrupted access to the previous activity. Mixed findings have been reported regarding the effectiveness of advance notice for decreasing problem behavior. Results of the current study show that an advance notice treatment package was effective for a child with autism; no escape extinction was necessary. Interruptions are part of everyday life and tolerating these changes is critical for habilitation for individuals with autism.

Assessment and treatment of problem behavior occasioned by variable‐sequence transitions for children with autism

“…These results are consistent with previous studies (Flannery & Horner, 1994;Schmitt et al, Tustin, 1995; for a review; see Brewer et al, 2014). Additionally, our results demonstrate that advance notice could increase compliance in this context, which is consistent with Vasquez et al (2017). By contrast, there are several studies showing that advance notice is ineffective in treating transition-related problem behavior in the absence of escape extinction (i.e., physically transitioning the individual following noncompliance 2 ; e.g., Cote et al, 2005;McCord et al, 2001;Wilder et al, 2010).…”