Toward a Functional Analysis of Self‐injury

Abstract

This study describes the use of an operant methodology to assess functional relationships between self-injury and specific environmental events. The self-injurious behaviors of nine developmentally disabled subjects were observed during periods of brief, repeated exposure to a series of analogue conditions. Each condition differed along one or more of the following dimensions: (1) play materials (present vs absent), (2) experimenter demands (high vs low), and (3) social attention (absent vs noncontingent vs contingent). Results showed a great deal of both between and within-subject variability. However, in six of the nine subjects, higher levels ofself-injury were consistently associated with a specific stimulus condition, suggesting that within-subject variability was a function of distinct features of the social and/or physical environment. These data are discussed in light of previously suggested hypotheses for the motivation of self-injury, with particular emphasis on their implications for the selection of suitable treatments.The description, incidence and damaging effects of self-injury, as well as numerous attempts to control it, have been repeatedly documented in the literature. Self-injury is a bizarre and often chronic form of aberrant behavior, the etiology of which is at best poorly understood. It poses serious risks to those who engage in the behavior, and it represents a formidable challenge to those who are responsible for treating it.Most of the research on self-injury over the past 15 years has focused on discovering means for its effective elimination. The greatest success has been found using methods based on operant condition-

A Comparison of Descriptive and Functional Analyses of Inappropriate Mealtime Behavior

“…Results showed that all parents provided escape (via removal of demands), access to attention, and access to tangibles, to some extent following IMB, with escape and attention being the most common parental response. Piazza, Fisher, et al then conducted functional analyses by comparing test conditions (escape, attention, and tangible) to a control condition, using methods similar to those described by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, andRichman (1982/1994). Results showed that the functional analyses were effective in identifying the function(s) of IMB, with escape and attention being the most commonly identified reinforcers and escape being the single most commonly identified reinforcer.…”

The Practical Importance of the Distinction Between Open and Closed-Ended Indirect Assessments

“…Response options are based on sources of reinforcement that are commonly identified in experimental/analog assessments (e.g., Iwata et al , 1994. This means that the opportunity for mentalistic and otherwise irrelevant information is removed (i.e., information that is derived from a dualistic worldview).…”

Functional Analysis With Typically Developing Children: Best Practice or Too Early to Tell?: In Response to Hanley (2012)

“…The vast majority of functional-assessment articles published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, focus on functional analysis and, more often than not, functional analysis procedures similar to those described by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman (1982/1994. This robust literature on functional analysis includes a number of procedural variations, all involving manipulation of antecedents and/or consequences, that effectively identify behavioral function in a majority of cases (up to 93% if multiple modifications are made to the procedure; Hagopian, Rooker, Jessel, & DeLeon, 2013).…”

“…The research on functional assessment rating scales is actually quite mixed, with some studies suggesting poor reliability (these studies primarily compared results of an indirect assessment to results of the traditional functional analysis documented by Iwata et al, 1982Iwata et al, /1994, but others documenting adequate reliability and validity (e.g., Carter & Horner, 2009;Doggett, Edwards, Moore, Tingstrom, & Wilczynski, 2001;Healy, Brett, & Leader, 2013;McIntosh et al, 2008;Watkins & Rapp, 2013). Studies suggesting adequate agreement typically compared results of indirect assessment to experimental functional analysis more broadly.…”

“…Peter et al, 2005;Thompson & Iwata;. Across such studies, however, results of descriptive analyses were compared to results of a traditional functional analysis similar to the one described by Iwata et al (1982Iwata et al ( /1994. None has evaluated a function-based intervention in the natural setting.…”