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

Abstract

Clinicians regularly use both indirect and direct assessments to identify preferred stimuli to include in control conditions and positive reinforcement test conditions in a functional analysis (FA). However, clinicians often rely on indirect assessment alone (e.g., caregiver report) to identify aversive stimuli to include in negative reinforcement test conditions. In this study, we evaluate a paired‐stimulus demand analysis and validate assessment results via FA. Results indicate that, for all 4 participants, the demands selected least often evoked higher rates of destructive behavior than more frequently selected demands. We identified an escape function for all 4 participants in the escape–least selected (LS) condition (true positive finding) and for only 1 participant in the escape–most selected (MS) condition (false negative finding for 3 of 4 participants). These results support the utility of empirically deriving stimuli for inclusion in the negative reinforcement test condition of an FA to decrease the likelihood of false negative findings.

Evaluation of a concurrent‐operant demand assessment to determine task preference

“…The CODA produced a hierarchy of preferences for tasks for all participants with selection as the primary dependent variable, replicating previous results of similar task preference assessments (e.g., Zangrillo et al, 2019). Although most participants made no selection at least occasionally, these results demonstrate the feasibility of a choice-based demand assessment in that participants frequently made selections between two potentially aversive tasks.…”

“…Alternatively, if the reinforcer is held constant for a variety of target responses, a PR schedule could be used to measure relative task effort or aversiveness. The purpose of the present study was twofold: to replicate and extend previous research on task preference assessments (e.g., Zangrillo et al, 2019) and to validate the outcomes of a concurrent-operant demand assessment (CODA) via a PR analysis.…”

“…Some researchers have used concurrent operant arrangements to obtain a hierarchy of tasks but have validated the results of those arrangements differently. For example, focusing on problem behavior, Zangrillo, Simmons, Fisher, and Owen (2019) validated the results of a paired stimulus demand assessment (PSDA) with a functional analysis, similar to the approach of Call et al (2009), Call et al, (2016), and Roscoe et al (2009). Tasks that were selected least in the PSDA reliably produced greater levels of problem behavior in the escape condition of a functional analysis relative to tasks selected most.…”

Evaluation of an indirect assessment for identifying tasks for functional analysis

“…Empirically based demand analyses have been evaluated for this purpose (Call et al, ; Call, Pabico, & Lomas, ; Roscoe et al, ; Zangrillo, Simmons, Fisher, & Owen, in press). For example, Roscoe et al () singly presented 10 to 12 tasks during 5‐min sessions.…”

“…Although conducting a demand analysis may enhance FA efficiency by identifying a relevant establishing operation for the FA demand condition, it can be a time‐intensive procedure (e.g., the Roscoe et al, , rate‐based demand analysis may take up to 2 hr; the Zangrillo et al, in press, paired stimulus demand analysis may take up to 1 hr). In certain settings, when minimal time can be allocated for assessment of problem behavior, conducting a demand analysis may not be a viable option.…”