Use of a latency-based demand assessment to identify potential demands for functional analyses

Abstract

Unlike potential tangible positive reinforcers, which are typically identified for inclusion in functional analyses empirically using preference assessments, demands are most often selected arbitrarily or based on caregiver report. The present study evaluated the use of a demand assessment with 12 participants who exhibited escape-maintained problem behavior. Participants were exposed to 10 demands, with aversiveness measured by average latency to the first instance of problem behavior. In subsequent functional analyses, results of a demand condition that included the demand with the shortest latency to problem behavior resulted in identification of an escape function for 11 of the participants. In contrast, a demand condition that included the demand with the longest latency resulted in identification of an escape function for only 5 participants. The implication of these findings is that for the remaining 7 participants, selection of the demand for the functional analysis without using the results of the demand assessment could have produced a false-negative finding.

Use of a paired‐stimulus demand analysis to evaluate demands for inclusion in functional analyses

“…The current evaluation attempted to develop and validate a direct observation method for selecting aversive stimuli for inclusion in the negative reinforcement test condition of an FA, extending findings from previous research (Call et al, , ; Roscoe et al, ). The methodology related to the paired‐stimulus preference assessment for identification of preferred stimuli was applied to the systematic identification of preference for demands (i.e., PSDA).…”

“…Call et al () replicated the latency‐based demand analysis with 12 participants. An escape function was identified for 11 of the 12 participants (i.e., 91.7%) in the FA condition including the highly aversive demand; whereas, an escape function was identified for only five participants (i.e., 41.7%) in the condition that included the less aversive demand.…”

Evaluation of an indirect assessment for identifying tasks for functional analysis

“…Call et al (; ) conducted an NRRS to identify tasks to include in a subsequent demand analysis. Similar to Zarcone et al (), because it was not a purpose of their studies, Call et al did not assess the reliability of the NRRS.…”

“…In addition, they did not conduct a comprehensive assessment of the validity of the NRRS. First, because they included only tasks identified as highly aversive (i.e., those associated with a score of a 3 or 4: Call et al, ; or a score of 4: Call et al, ) in the subsequent demand analysis, detection of false negative outcomes (i.e., those events ranked as not particularly aversive may have been aversive) was not possible. Second, although they included exclusively NRRS‐identified highly aversive tasks, only some of these tasks were associated with short latencies to problem behavior (i.e., an indication of a highly aversive task) in the subsequent demand analysis, suggesting false positives were observed (i.e., events ranked as aversive were not observed to be aversive).…”

“…Additionally, because Call et al (; ) used a latency‐based demand analysis, it is unclear if NRRS‐identified highly aversive tasks would yield high levels of problem behavior in a rate‐based demand analysis similar to that conducted by Roscoe et al (). A limitation of a latency‐based analysis is the possibility of the analysis resulting in false positive outcomes (Thomason‐Sassi, Iwata, Neidert, & Roscoe, ).…”