Conteúdo indexado
Comparisons of synthesized and individual reinforcement contingencies during functional analysis
2016 · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, v. 49, n. 3, p. 596-616
Dados principais
- Ano de publicação
- 2016
- Dados editoriais
- Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, v. 49, n. 3, p. 596-616
- DOI
- 10.1002/jaba.314
Autores
- Wayne W. Fisher
- Brian D. Greer
- Patrick W. Romani
- Amanda N. Zangrillo
- Todd M. Owen
Resumo
Researchers typically modify individual functional analysis ( FA ) conditions after results are inconclusive (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord , 2003). Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, and Hanratty (2014) introduced a marked departure from this practice, using an interview‐informed synthesized contingency analysis ( IISCA ). In the test condition, they delivered multiple contingencies simultaneously (e.g., attention and escape) after each occurrence of problem behavior; in the control condition, they delivered those same reinforcers noncontingently and continuously. In the current investigation, we compared the results of the IISCA with a more traditional FA in which we evaluated each putative reinforcer individually. Four of 5 participants displayed destructive behavior that was sensitive to the individual contingencies evaluated in the traditional FA . By contrast, none of the participants showed a response pattern consistent with the assumption of the IISCA . We discuss the implications of these findings on the development of accurate and efficient functional analyses.